Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nrc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Nrc Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 31, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24759

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nrc Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(77)ECC637

Excerpt

1. the question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of nylon filament yarn manufactured and captively consumed by the appellant. the department has based such value on the price at which the appellant sold the yarn. it however did not accept the contention of the appellant that the yarn which was sold underwent processes to which the captively consumed yarn was not subject and that in determining the value of captively consumed yarn, deduction must be made on account of the expenses incurred on the processes.2. these processes, it is stated, are "aging or reconditioning of the yarn; rewinding of paper containers in the form of cheeses and subsequent packing". the commissioner (appeals) has dismissed the contention which is raised before him on the ground that nothing other than yarn that it captively consumed. in doing so, she has disregarded the proviso under rule 6(b)(i) which requires adjustment to be made between the value of comparable goods and the value of the goods under consideration, particularly the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of these goods. if the yarn was sold subject to these processes and packed differently, its material characteristics should be affected. the department was therefore required to take into account these factors in determining the value of the captively consumed yarn.3. counsel for the appellant states that he will produce to the commissioner (appeals) data relating to the costs incurred on these processes, so as to enable him to arrive at the necessary value of the captively consumed yarn, within two months from the receipt of this order. the commissioner shall consider this material and also the material the department may rely upon and pass order according to law.

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the value for assessment of nylon filament yarn manufactured and captively consumed by the appellant. The department has based such value on the price at which the appellant sold the yarn. It however did not accept the contention of the appellant that the yarn which was sold underwent processes to which the captively consumed yarn was not subject and that in determining the value of captively consumed yarn, deduction must be made on account of the expenses incurred on the processes.

2. These processes, it is stated, are "aging or reconditioning of the yarn; rewinding of paper containers in the form of cheeses and subsequent packing". The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the contention which is raised before him on the ground that nothing other than yarn that it captively consumed. In doing so, she has disregarded the proviso under rule 6(b)(i) which requires adjustment to be made between the value of comparable goods and the value of the goods under consideration, particularly the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of these goods. If the yarn was sold subject to these processes and packed differently, its material characteristics should be affected. The department was therefore required to take into account these factors in determining the value of the captively consumed yarn.

3. Counsel for the appellant states that he will produce to the Commissioner (Appeals) data relating to the costs incurred on these processes, so as to enable him to arrive at the necessary value of the captively consumed yarn, within two months from the receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall consider this material and also the material the department may rely upon and pass order according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial