Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Cce Chandigarh on 18 January, 2001

Cce, Delhi vs (2) Shri Manoj Kumar Jain on 10 January, 2014

25. I note that the decision of the Tribunal in Bhilai Conductors P. Ltd. reported in 2000 (125) ELT 781 was strictly not a decision of the Larger Bench as observed by Member (Judicial) but a decision of majority of the Members arising due to difference in view between two Members who originally heard the matter. I also note that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has called for reference on questions of law involved in the case of Pepsi Foods Vs. CCE-2002 (139) ELT 658 (Tri.  Del.) relied upon by Member (Judicial).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 9 July, 2003

The learned Counsel further pointed out that the order of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh remains confirmed by the Supreme Court in view of the dismissal of Revenue's appeal against that order in Civil Appeal No. CAD 2515/2002, dated 10th February, 2003, The learned SDR has sought to distinguish these decisions on the ground that in the present case, the batch number, expiry date etc. of the bulk drugs has undergone change during the re-processing.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.R.C.D. (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 June, 2004

12. Reference may also be made here to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. C.C.E. Chandigarh 2003 (158) E.L.T. 552 (SC) wherein the royalty amount collected by M/s Pepsi from their bottlers for use of trade mark of soft drink beverages manufactured out of the concentrates sold by M/s Pepsi was hold to be includible in the assessable value of concentrate. In para 11 their lordship observed that - "The fact that the royalty is charged for permitting the use of the trademark, but not as part of price for specific units of concentrate sold does not detract from the fact that the overall consideration for the sale of concentrate is not merely its price stated in the invoice. It is something more that, namely, royalty to be received periodically". Though the fact of the instant case are not at all four comers with the fact of the instant case but support can be drawn from the ratio of the same.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gat No. 1109 vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 August, 2009

Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Collector 1996 (82) ELT 33 (T) where the Supreme Court affirmed the view taken in Collector vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. 1997 (91) ELT 544 and in Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. CCE, 2003 (158) ILT 552 (SC) where the royalty paid by the bottler to the assessee was held to be includable in assessable value. The Respondents on this premise have always been collecting excise duty on full sale price charged by concentrate manufacturer from the bottler. Revenue has never disputed that advertisement ig of related to manufacture and aerated water sale of is an concentrate activity and that cost of advertisement is relatable to aerated water which forms part of value of concentrate in the hands of concentrate manufacturer and hence should be included in the sale price of concentrate charged by the concentrate manufacturer.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Madurai Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce on 27 September, 2002

(c) The applicants were one of the franchise holders of M/s. Coco Cola Company, Atlanta, United States and there was no need for them to incur any advertisement expenditure to market their product. The advertisement and sale promotion expenses incurred by the marketing company viz. M/s. Sakthi Soft Drinks Ltd., were in the nature of expenses incurred by a marketing company for expanding its own interest, with no evidence of any kind of control and/or directions from the applicants. The applicants are not found to be collecting any amounts from the purchasers. If they are not claiming any deduction towards advertisement expenses, it only means that the expenses incurred by the applicants are out of the Sale Price accruals from sales of the product in question. Consequently, no further addition could be called for towards advertisement expenses. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. CCE, 1996 (82) ELT 33.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Venkateshwara Essences And Chemicals ... on 28 May, 2014

10. The present dispute stands fully covered by the above decision of the Tribunal, which has so far not been stayed or set aside by the Higher Court. Therefore, considering the position of law and the principles decided therein, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue-appellant, and accordingly, the same are dismissed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Amrit Soap Company on 22 April, 2015

c. From a plain reading of the above it is clear that as per the said Rule 25(b) goods are confiscated when the manufacturer (b) does not account for any excisable goods produced or manufactured or stored by him. The meaning of the expression account for in the said Rule is important to confiscate the goods. The expression account for in the said Rule is important to confiscate the goods. The expression account for was discussed by the Honble CESTAT in the case of Pepsi Foods vs. CCE [2002 (139) ELT 658 (CEGAT) as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mcdowell And Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 13 December, 2004

5. The learned Counsel submitted that, the appellants not only supplied food flavours to the C.B.Us, but also certain blending materials. The percentage of food flavour essence is very very low and the royalty received cannot be attributed to the food flavour essence supplied to the C.B.Us. Moreover, the C.B.Us. manufacture certain products, which do not use the food flavours, and in respect of these products also, the Royalty is received by the appellants. Hence, the entire royalty received cannot be attributed to the sale of food flavours to the C.B.Us. Though these factors were placed before the adjudicating authority, she has not given any finding on them. The Pepsi Foods Ltd. case is distinguishable because in that case only one item i.e. 'concentrate' is involved whereas in the present case, a number of blending materials are also supplied apart from food flavours. In respect of supplies of food flavour to M/s. Herbertson Ltd., the appellants pay royalty to them for using their brand name. It was urged that the Royalty is given to them mainly for use of their brand name by C.B.Us. The learned Counsel took us through the various clauses of the Agreement and emphasized that the royalty payment is not linked to the sale of the food flavours.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mcdowell And Company Limited And Mr. ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 January, 2006

6. The Senior Counsel for Revenue, Shri Ashok Haranahalli, relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh in which the Apex Court has held that the royalty amount collected for sale of concentrate is required to be added. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants distinguished this judgment on the ground that the concentrate is utilized for manufacture of excisable goods while in the present case the food flavours are not utilized for manufacture of excisable goods. The IMFL is a State subject and no excise duty is charged and, therefore, the judgment of Pepsi Foods Ltd. is clearly distinguishable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next