Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. And C. Ex. on 26 September, 2002

Ms Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner on 6 October, 2023

In view of the foregoing analysis, considering that the Revenue and all the authorities below have misinterpreted the Co- ordinate Bench judgment of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on 22.12.2016) (supra); that Revenue has failed to discharge its onus to establish that the goods in question would fall in general/residual/orphan entry and not the specific entry; that no cogent reason has been assigned to hold the goods in questions as 'snacks'; that the goods in question have been classified as namkeen as per the FSSAI license; that the goods in question have been held to be namkeen by Apex Court in Frito Lays India (supra) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), this Court is inclined to answer the questions of law framed herein-above in favour of the petitioner-assessee and against the respondent-revenue.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, ... on 6 October, 2023

In view of the foregoing analysis, considering that the Revenue and all the authorities below have misinterpreted the Co- ordinate Bench judgment of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on 22.12.2016) (supra); that Revenue has failed to discharge its onus to establish that the goods in question would fall in general/residual/orphan entry and not the specific entry; that no cogent reason has been assigned to hold the goods in questions as 'snacks'; that the goods in question have been classified as namkeen as per the FSSAI license; that the goods in question have been held to be namkeen by Apex Court in Frito Lays India (supra) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), this Court is inclined to answer the questions of law framed herein-above in favour of the petitioner-assessee and against the respondent-revenue.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, ... on 6 October, 2023

In view of the foregoing analysis, considering that the Revenue and all the authorities below have misinterpreted the Co- ordinate Bench judgment of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on 22.12.2016) (supra); that Revenue has failed to discharge its onus to establish that the goods in question would fall in general/residual/orphan entry and not the specific entry; that no cogent reason has been assigned to hold the goods in questions as 'snacks'; that the goods in question have been classified as namkeen as per the FSSAI license; that the goods in question have been held to be namkeen by Apex Court in Frito Lays India (supra) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), this Court is inclined to answer the questions of law framed herein-above in favour of the petitioner-assessee and against the respondent-revenue.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner on 6 October, 2023

In view of the foregoing analysis, considering that the Revenue and all the authorities below have misinterpreted the Co- ordinate Bench judgment of Pepsico India Holding (S.B. STR No. 194/2009; decided on 22.12.2016) (supra); that Revenue has failed to discharge its onus to establish that the goods in question would fall in general/residual/orphan entry and not the specific entry; that no cogent reason has been assigned to hold the goods in questions as 'snacks'; that the goods in question have been classified as namkeen as per the FSSAI license; that the goods in question have been held to be namkeen by Apex Court in Frito Lays India (supra) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), this Court is inclined to answer the questions of law framed herein-above in favour of the petitioner-assessee and against the respondent-revenue.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Jain - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs vs Thermon Heat Tracers Ltd. on 14 June, 2005

2. We have heard learned SDR and perused the record. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. We find that royalty is payable on indigenous value addition of the product. It cannot be added to the value of imported components. Reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2004 (171) E.L.T. A129 (S.C.) is misplaced for the reason that the question before the Apex Court was the inclusion of royalty collected from bottlers on beverages manufactured from concentrate supplied by the assessee in the assessable value of the concentrates sold, and issue did not relate to addition of royalty to value of imported item. We, therefore, see no merit in the present appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1