Incab Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 29 April, 1994
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Polymers v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165 (SC) had held as under :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 80 (0.37 seconds)Documents citing
Hindustan Polymers Etc. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise, Etc. Etc on 23 August, 1989
Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 October, 1996
In Hindustan Polymers v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165 (S.C), Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) observed that the measure of excise duty is price and not value and noticed with approval, the observations in Bombay Tyre International case, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C) that value of an excisable article has to be computed with reference to the price charged by the manufacturer, the computation being made in accordance with the terms of Section 4.
Spencer Consumer Products And Services ... vs C.C.E. on 22 May, 1996
10. The learned Advocate had also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Hindustan Polymers v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165 (SC). In that case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the goods involved were fusil oil/styrene monomer and they were marketable without being packed or contained in the drums or containers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in that case that packing was not necessary for completion of manufacture of excisable goods. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the cost referred to in Section 4(4)(d)(i) was not cost which was incurred by the assessee i.e. the seller. Further they have referred to the scheme of the Section whereunder durable packing returnable by the buyer has to be excluded. They have held "It would create an absurd situation if durable packing supplied by the assessee and returnable to the assessee is not to be includible in the assessable value but a durable packing supplied by the buyer to the assessee and returnable to the buyer is made a part of the assessable vlaue". In the proceedings before us it is not the case of the appellants that the cardboard containers were durable and returnable. The Squashes and Syrups would not be sold loose in the wholesale market. They had to be packed in packing which in this case was a cardboard carton for stacking 12 bottles in each carton. These were specific to the goods with name of the product and other necessary details to identify the product and the producer were imprinted.
Ceat Tyres Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 June, 1996
In the case of Hindustan Polymers v. Collector of Central Excise - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165 (SC), the Supreme Court had further clarified that when the durable container is brought by the customer, its cost was not includible. They have observed as under :
Packart Glass vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 October, 1998
6. The cited law in the case of Hindustan Polymers Ltd. v. Collector will necessarily apply except where the buyer and supplier of the packing material are not independent entities. Then the packing material although supplied by the buyer may be includible in the assessable value. Shri Willingdon at this stage seeks to make a distinction between separate corporate entities and separate entities in terms of the Central Excise law. He has submitted that as long as the two units are holding different L-4 licenses they should be deemed to be not only separate assessees but also separate entities for interpretation of Section 4.
Jauss Polymers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut on 18 September, 2003
5. The situation arising in this case is exactly the same as what was considered by this Court in Hindustan Polymers v. Collector of Central Excise and in that decision Justice Ranganathan; who delivered a separate but concurring judgment analysed Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act and stated that three kinds of situation may arise and stated as follows :
Mrf Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner (Ct)-Iii on 14 February, 2020
16. It is submitted that the impugned demand is contrary to well
settled principle of law in Hindustan Polymers Co. Vs Collector of
Central Excise, 1999 (106) ELT 12 (SC) wherein it was held that an
assessing officer cannot traverse beyond the scope of the Show Cause
Notice.
Cipla Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 31 May, 2002
Rajeswari Enterprises ... vs C.C.E. on 13 September, 2004
and also in the case of Hindustan Polymers v. Collector reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 165, wherein also similar view was taken.
I.T.C. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 18 March, 1994
The Tribunal in its decision in the case of VST Industries, according to the Department had not considered the Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Polymers (supra) in the correct perspective. In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with the addition of notional value of the drums to be added to the assessable value whereas here in the present case no such notional value is to be considered because the freight administrative charges were all actuals. The learned Senior Counsel further urged that where there is Cum-duty price, the assessable value has to be worked backwards from the price. In the present case this is not the exercise called for because the appellants have charged the actual freight administrative charges without any element of duty.