Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)

M/S. Hotline Electronics Ltd vs Cce, Noida on 1 August, 2012

In the case of G.S. Enterprises Vs. CCE (supra), M/s. G.S. Enterprises were manufacturing Presto razors on job work basis for Indian Shaving Product Ltd. (ISPL), out of the components supplied by ISPL and besides this, they were also packing on job work basis, the razors so manufactured, with a set of 5 blades also supplied by ISPL, whose combo MRP declared was Rs.23/- . The Tribunal in this case has held that even though the razors were cleared in a combination pack along with 5 blades and Rs.23/-per pack declared was the MRP of the combo pack, duty would be chargeable on the presto razors by adopting its MRP as Rs.10/-, as this was the MRP of the razors, when the same were being sold by ISPL individually packed. This judgement of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide judgement reported in 2003(151) ELT A-297. We are of the view that the ratio of this judgement of the Tribunal, affirmed by the Apex Court, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, in view of the facts of this case, the MRP declared by the appellant has to be treated as MRP of the CTVs only and not the combined MRP of the CTV and the VCD players supplied free and the duty would be chargeable separately on the VCD players. Since during the period of dispute the MRP of the VCD were not available, the same has to be ascertained by adopting a reasonable criteria.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Precision Tool Room And Moulding House vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 January, 2007

and Gillete India Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III 2004 (175) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.- Del.) The first judgment is rendered with reference to deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-CE (NT) dated 03.06.1995. The proviso to para 3 of the Notification No. 29/96-CE (NT) dt. 03.06.1996 is almost paramateria to Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. For this limit purpose the above judgment is relied upon, but the learned Commissioner could not understand the ratio laid down. The second judgment shows that Rule 57F(13) is paramateria of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Similarly provisions of Rule 12 and Rule 13 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 are paramateria with Rule 13 and Rule 18 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable to the present case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1