Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Versus Ispat Industries Ltd. (2025) 30 Centax 108 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
- S/Shri V.C. Bharathi, Adv., B. Sunita Rao, Ms Preeti Rani, Advs., G.S. Makker & Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR’s, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv., Kumar Visalaksh, Udit Jain, Saurabh Dugar, Advs. & Abhishek Vikas, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The dispute pertained to the valuation of goods captively consumed by a related person under the Central Excise regime. The issue was whether depreciation on a plant, which was under trial-run plant depreciation cost and not capitalised during the relevant period, should be included in the cost of production as per CAS-4 standards. The CESTAT held that such depreciation was not to be included in the assessable value. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal’s order to exclude the depreciation of the trial-run plant depreciation cost in the cost of production. The Apex Court left the question of law open regarding the inclusion of depreciation of the trial-run Plant in cost of production due to low tax effect.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Commissioner v. Ispat Ind. Ltd. — (2025) 30 Centax 107 (Tri. – Mum.) — Appeal disposed of
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.I. & C. Instruction F. No. CBIC-160390/20/2024-JC-CBEC, dated 6-8-2024 [Para 1]
