Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 778 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

Indian Rayon And Industries Ltd. vs Cce on 3 May, 2002

Placing reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints' case the learned Member (Technical) holds that the price at which processed fabrics are sold by the raw material supplier is not relevant to the issue. It is the price at which the job worker i.e., the appellant is selling the goods is relevant for the purpose of duty and that must be the intrinsic value of the grey cloth plus value of the job work done plus the manufacturing profits and manufacturing expenses. The appellant is held entitled to abatement on the profit element if any of the raw material supplier included in the assessable value. It was then held that the appellant had suppressed material facts from the Department and the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked. The matter was then remanded for working out the exact amount of differential duty liability of the appellant and the amount of penalty to be imposed on them.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

M/S. Heinz India Private Ltd vs Cce, Delhi Iv on 28 May, 2015

1.3 Sometime in October, 2000, the Department initiated enquiry and also analyzed the terms of the agreement between FHS and Heinz to ascertain as to whether the same are on principal to principal basis or not. The enquiry was initiated, as with effect from October, 2000, the assessable value of the Glucon - D manufactured and cleared by FHS to Heinz had been reduced, as compared to the assessable value during the earlier period. Here it may be mentioned that during the period prior to 01.10.2000, FHS in respect of the clearances of of Glucon - D by them to Heinz were paying duty on the sale price of the product by Heinz from their depots, but w.e.f. 01.10.2000, FHS had started paying duty on the value determined in accordance with the Apex Courts judgment in the case of Ujagar Prints (supra). The Department after enquiry and on going through the terms of the agreement was of the view that the transactions between FHS and Heinz are not on principal to principal basis. It is on this basis that the department was of the view that the assessable value of the glucon-D cleared by FHS to Heinz would be the sale price of the product by Heinz from their depots. It is on this basis that the following three show cause notice were issued for demand of the differential duty along with interest and also for imposition of penalty:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Larsen And Toubro Ltd. vs Principal Secretary, Dept. Of ... on 16 March, 2004

21. From these judgments what is clear to this Court is that the manufacture is the end result of one or more processes through which the original commodity is made to pass. The commodity has to undergo a change and the end-product must result in a new and distinct article. It is only then the manufacture takes place. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63, Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 401 and Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 47 STC 124.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Gururajan - Full Document

Cce, Mumbai Ii vs M/S. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. on 18 April, 2001

10. We also observe that the Respondents had sought permission to remove inputs or partially processed goods under Rule 57F(2) and/or Notification No. 214/86-CE, dated 25.3.1986, which was refused by the Assistant Collector, under letter dated 3.11.1987 on the ground that the partially processed vehicles are chasis and cowl and not open jeap and the chasis and cowl are neither input nor semi-finished and is classified under Sub-heading 8706.30 attracting duty. By holding so, the Department cannot now argue that sending of chasis and cowl to the Bod-Builders was a paper transaction.In Swaraj mazad's case also, the Department did not permit removal of chasis under Chapter X procedure to independent units.We also do not find any force in the submission of the learned D.R. that ownership of the goods always remained with the Respondents.It has been held by the Supreme Court in ujagar Prints vs. U.O.I., 1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC) that "Duties of excise are imposed on the production or manufacture of goods and are levied upon the commodity taxed.The question whether the producer or the manufacture is or is not the owner of the goods is not determinative of the lability.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next