Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing Joint Secretary To The Govt. Of India And ... vs Food Specialities Ltd on 30 September, 1985

Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

Similarly, in the case of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and others v. Food Specialities Ltd., (supra), it was held that the value of Nestle's trade marks could not be to the wholesale price charged by the dealer to Nestle's for the purpose of computing the value of the goods manufactured. The goods in both these cases were manufactured independently of the addition of the trade-marks. The price thereof at the factory gate was not after taking into account the value of the trade-marks. If that was the position the value of the trade-marks cannot be added to the wholesale cash price charged by the dealer. Affixation of trade-marks for enhancement of the value thereof is extraneous to and independent of the process of manufacture. The charges for the same are not part of the assessable value and cannot enter into computation of the whole-sail cash price on the basis of which excise duties ale to be levied. In the aforesaid view of the law and tor the reasons mentioned by my learned brother, l agree with his answer to this contention. The assessable value would. therefore. include the value of the grey cloth in the hands of the processors plus the value of the job-work done plus manufacturing expenses whatever would be included in the price at the factory gate. The correct assessable value must be the value of the fabric at the factory gate, that is to say, the value at which manufactured goods leave the factory and enter the main stream.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 540 - Full Document

Cheryl Laboratories vs Collector Of Central Excise on 11 November, 1992

11. The same view has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Secretary to Government of India v. Food Specialities Ltd. (supra); See also the rulings of High Courts in Hind Lamps Ltd. v. Union of India (supra); Bata India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise (supra). The learned Collector has held that there is supply of materials from M/s. Glenmark. But this by itself is not a sufficient factor to confirm the demand.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Machine Well Engineers vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 22 July, 1994

See also Bata India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1978 (2) E.L.T. 211, Bapalal and Co. v. Government of India, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 581, Corona Sahu & Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Ors., 1981 (8) E.L.T. 730, Union of India v. Cibatul Ltd., 1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 and the Joint Secretary, Government of India v. Food Specialities Ltd., 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Webbing & Belting Factory Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Ghaziabad on 19 July, 2024

Similarly, in the case of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and Others v. Food Specialities Ltd. (supra), it was held that the value of Nestle‟s trade marks could not be to the wholesale price charged by the dealer to Nestle‟s for the purpose of Excise Appeal Nos.70780 & 70781 of 2016 74 computing the value of the goods manufactured. The goods in both these cases were manufactured independently of the addition of the trade-marks. The price thereof at the factory gate was after taking into account the value of the trade- marks. If that was the position the value of the trade-marks cannot be added to the wholesale cash price charged by the dealer. Affixation of trade-marks for enhancement of the value thereof is extraneous to and independent of the process of manufacture. The charges for the same are not part of the assessable value and cannot enter into computation of the wholesale cash price on the basis of which excise duties are to be levied.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bata India Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 May, 1986

The question, therefore, arises is whether by affixing a different brand name on the goods, held to be similar, having the same retail prices and otherwise qualitatively the same, it would make the goods different for the purpose of Section 4 of Central Excises & Salt Act. Or, in other words, does the affixing of brand name amounts to manufacture of different categories of goods or does the affixing of brand name amounts to manufacture. The Supreme Court, in the case of Government of India Vs Food Specialities Ltd.: 1985 (22) ELT 324 have held that affixing of brand name does not amount to manufacture. Affixing of brand name amounts to manufacture only if Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act were to so define the term manufacture. It is only in the context of tobacco and patent and proprietory medicines falling under Section 14E that labelling and relabelling has been stated as process of manufacture. In respect of shoes, however, there is no such definition of manufacture. Therefore by merely affixing the brand name which tantamounts to labelling it cannot be held that a new product has come into existence., A plea has been taken before us that Bata brand and BSC brand of shoes are known commercially as two separate categories of goods and to that extent it should be treated as separate class of goods for the purpose of assessment. No basis has been laid in support of this plea. No market enquiries have been conducted by the Department or any affidavits obtained at the relevant time to establish that in the trade, the two brands of shoes are treated commercially as separate category of goods. As mentioned earlier the affixing of the brand name is for the purpose of identifying the product with the manufacturers and there is nothing on record to show that the people in the trade understand the BSC and Bata brands of shoes as otherwise than being the manufacture of Bata & Company.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Motor Industries Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 13 August, 1998

In the case of Joint Secretary to Govt of India v. Food Specialities Ltd., which was delivered a few days after the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. CibatuI Limited was pronounced the Supreme Court took a similar view on the basis of the clauses of the agreement and other material considered in that case which were identical. Both the judgments were rendered by Pathak, J. (as he then was).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sai Mirra Innopharm Pvt. Ltd. (Smipl), ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 31 October, 2006

In Jt. Secretary to Govt. of India v. Food Specialities Ltd. the Supreme Court decided that that the price at which the manufacturer sold goods in the course of whole sale trade to Nestle was the assessable value and the value of trade mark was not required to be added to determine the value for levy of duty. The demand had been made on the basis that transactions between manufacturer and the buyer were not at arms length and the prices were emaciated due to the relationship between the buyer and the manufacturer. The association between the two had been ascertained not on the basis of any direct or indirect flow back of funds from the buyer to the seller. As the basis of the demand was mutuality of interest between ARL/DRL and the appellants and as the same had not been established the impugned order deserved to be set aside.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

International Computer India Mfg. Co. ... vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 30 December, 1988

In regard to the use of the trade mark, the learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that the use of the trade mark makes no difference so far as assessments under Section 4 are concerned and cited the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of. Secretary to Govt. of India v. Food Specialities Ltd. [1985 (22) E.L.T. 324]. He pleaded that the condition that all goods should be sold to ICIL was removed by deletion of this clause in 1970 and also the clause whereby if either of the two companies, ceased to be subsidiary of the parent company, the agreement would stand terminated. He also pleaded that the buying company was having a separate agreement with their customers so far as the warranty and maintenance of the equipment was concerned, and pleaded that in fact no warranty element was involved in the matter of sales.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next