Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing Alembic Glass Industries vs Cce on 10 September, 2003

M/S. Indian Spring Company vs Cce, Coimbatore on 4 November, 2013

24. While returns filed with sales tax department can at best show that the two units were doing trading activity since the manufacturing facilitiessince those dates. However the returns filed with central excise department cannot be brushed aside. It is difficult to accept the contention of Revenue that when M/s BMI was audited for 1988-89 and 1989-90 the existence of the two units side by side could not have been noticed. Revenue had accepted subsequent returns by BMI and declarations by ISC without any questions being raised. The argument adopted by the lower authorities that only BMI had registration and ISC was only filing declaration as a small scale unit having turnover within the fully exempted limit cannot change the position because at least BMI was registered which implied visits by officers at least on an annual basis and being regularly audited as evidenced by papers produced by the appellant.The objection that is being raised now by Revenue is of a type which could be noticed during routine visits and audit of one unit itself. The adjudicating authority had relied on the observation of the Tribunal in Alembic Glass Industries Vs. CCE -1994 (73) ELT 579. But in that case the relevant information was about share holding pattern in two companies by different persons. Here the relevant fact is one of availability of machines which becomes apparent on visual inspection. On the contrary in a few cases the Tribunal has held that extended period of time cannot be invoked for demanding duty by clubbing the clearances of the two units when relevant facts are known to the department. The following decisions are relevant:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private ... vs Cce-Pune - Ii on 27 August, 2020

In the case of Grasim Industries(supra) as noted earlier a five member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, answered the question referred to it, stating that principles of determination of normal value and judicial exposition in respect of "normal value" applies to "transaction value." Thus in our view the value that qualifies to be a value under Section 4(1)(a) can be value which is on account of sale at arm's length, and not any value that is determined for transfer/ clearance of goods. In absence of any value under Section 4(1)(a), the only route available for determination of the value will be under Sec.4(1)(b) through Rule 11 of valuation rules and the value shall be determined 92 Appeal No. ST/86245, 86251/2016, ST/86519, 86542/2017 ST/86543, 86545/2018, ST/86595, 86596/2019 using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. By application of Rule 11, in case of related person transactions the value needs to be determined by application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Thus in absence of Section 4(1)(a) value satisfying the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in case of M/s FIAT Industries the value is finally determined in terms of Rule 9 only, on the basis of sale price of M/s VWGSIPL to the dealers.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private ... vs Pune-I on 27 August, 2020

In the case of Grasim Industries(supra) as noted earlier a five member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, answered the question referred to it, stating that principles of determination of normal value and judicial exposition in respect of "normal value" applies to "transaction value." Thus in our view the value that qualifies to be a value under Section 4(1)(a) can be value which is on account of sale at arm's length, and not any value that is determined for transfer/ clearance of goods. In absence of any value under Section 4(1)(a), the only route available for determination of the value will be under Sec.4(1)(b) through Rule 11 of valuation rules and the value shall be determined 92 Appeal No. ST/86245, 86251/2016, ST/86519, 86542/2017 ST/86543, 86545/2018, ST/86595, 86596/2019 using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. By application of Rule 11, in case of related person transactions the value needs to be determined by application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Thus in absence of Section 4(1)(a) value satisfying the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in case of M/s FIAT Industries the value is finally determined in terms of Rule 9 only, on the basis of sale price of M/s VWGSIPL to the dealers.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Central on 27 August, 2020

In the case of Grasim Industries(supra) as noted earlier a five member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, answered the question referred to it, stating that principles of determination of normal value and judicial exposition in respect of "normal value" applies to "transaction value." Thus in our view the value that qualifies to be a value under Section 4(1)(a) can be value which is on account of sale at arm's length, and not any value that is determined for transfer/ clearance of goods. In absence of any value under Section 4(1)(a), the only route available for determination of the value will be under Sec.4(1)(b) through Rule 11 of valuation rules and the value shall be determined 92 Appeal No. ST/86245, 86251/2016, ST/86519, 86542/2017 ST/86543, 86545/2018, ST/86595, 86596/2019 using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. By application of Rule 11, in case of related person transactions the value needs to be determined by application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Thus in absence of Section 4(1)(a) value satisfying the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in case of M/s FIAT Industries the value is finally determined in terms of Rule 9 only, on the basis of sale price of M/s VWGSIPL to the dealers.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private ... vs Pune on 27 August, 2020

In the case of Grasim Industries(supra) as noted earlier a five member bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, answered the question referred to it, stating that principles of determination of normal value and judicial exposition in respect of "normal value" applies to "transaction value." Thus in our view the value that qualifies to be a value under Section 4(1)(a) can be value which is on account of sale at arm's length, and not any value that is determined for transfer/ clearance of goods. In absence of any value under Section 4(1)(a), the only route available for determination of the value will be under Sec.4(1)(b) through Rule 11 of valuation rules and the value shall be determined 92 Appeal No. ST/86245, 86251/2016, ST/86519, 86542/2017 ST/86543, 86545/2018, ST/86595, 86596/2019 using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. By application of Rule 11, in case of related person transactions the value needs to be determined by application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Thus in absence of Section 4(1)(a) value satisfying the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in case of M/s FIAT Industries the value is finally determined in terms of Rule 9 only, on the basis of sale price of M/s VWGSIPL to the dealers.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukut Pipes Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 October, 2004

The Commissioner has also recorded his findings in this regard in Para 37 of the impugned Order by observing that the transactions in Banks do not seem to be based on commercial consideration and prove the inter-locking /common funding and inter-facing of the finances of the two companies. The Appellants have not disputed these facts specifically either In the Memorandum of Appeal or at the time of hearing before us. This fact coupled with the facts that there is common management control and marketing control, both the companies belong to same group goes to prove that Appellants No. 1 & 2 are related persons. The Supreme Court in the case of L.T.E.C. (P) Ltd., relied upon by the learned Senior Departmental Representative, has held the two companies as related persons on account of common directors who were relative of each other and both the companies were family concerns and were beneficiaries of their ventures. The learned Senior Departmental Representative has also relied upon the decision in Narendra Industries Ltd., supra, wherein the Tribunal has held the marketing company to be related person of the manufacturing company in view of the totality of facts such as common directors, payment of interest free advances, meeting of Expenses towards sale promotion activities and after sale services by the marketing companies, etc. We, therefore, hold that mutuality of interest exists between M/s. Mukut Pipes Ltd. and M/s. Surindra Engg. Co. Ltd. Accordingly, the price at which the goods are sold by M/s. Mukut Pipes Ltd. can not be the assessable value under the erstwhile Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Cce vs Gilt Pack Ltd. And Ors. on 1 April, 2005

(1) Area Controls Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2004 (91) ECC 314 (SC): 2003 (158) ELT 272 (SC) (2) Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2003 (85) ECC 9 (SC): 2003 (151) ELT 14 (SC) (3) Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (83) ECC 288 (SC): 2002 (143) ELT 244 (SC) (4) L.D. Industries v. CCE, Pune, 2003 (157) ELT 459 (5) Super Star v. CCE, Calicut, 2002 (148) ELT 854 (6) Padma Packages (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbator, 1997 (90) ELT 175 (7) Metrosyl v. CCE, Patna, 1995 (77) ELT 130 (8) CCE, New Delhi v. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., 2004 (95) ECC 617 (SC): 2004 (171) ELT 155
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Proctor And Gamble And Shri Ashish Surve vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 June, 2005

c) In terms of the recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (143) ELT 244, the shareholders of public limited company do not, by reason of their shareholding have interest in the business of the company. The Hon'ble supreme Court considered the decision of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atic Industries and also the decision of Supreme Court in Calcutta Chromotype Ltd and held as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next