Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Indian Farmers Fertilisers Co-Op ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Nch ... on 7 March, 2008

Sanghi Industries Ltd vs Kandla on 3 July, 2024

Therefore, according to counsel, the Garden Silk Mills Ltd. case is authority for the proposition that the entire cost incurred for bringing the imported goods up to the Customs barrier should form the assessable value. We find it difficult to agree with this argument. First of all, the apex Court was not concerned with the demurrage paid or payable by the importer on account of the delayed clearance of the goods from the ship. Demurrage becomes payable only on extraordinary situations. The provisions contained in the Rules were not adverted to by the Apex Court in the said decision. Their Lordships have categorically held that the price at which the imported goods are ordinarily sold should be the basis for valuation under Section 14(1) of the Act. Ordinarily demurrage is not payable. Only in extraordinary circumstances where delay in discharging the goods from the ship occurs, demurrage becomes payable. Such extraordinary circumstances are not falling within the purview of Section 14 (1) of the Act. This aspect can be illustrated by the following example :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Shree Chh Shahu Ssk Ltd on 28 October, 2014

2.2 Therefore, in order to effectually dealing with the waste-arise in the course of manufacture, in terms of directions of the Pollution Control Board, it is compulsory for the Sugar factory like respondent to do composting of the said waste material so as to avoid harm to environment for well being of human life and animals. As such, as directed by the Pollution Control Board, the assessee cannot throw away the waste material and is bound to arrange systematic disposal of the said waste. Accordingly, the assessee have built a compost pit, which is referred to as compost yard and in the said compost pit, they were dumping the press-mud and boiler ash, where due to natural cause, the said mixture of press-mud and boiler ash was got composted. Therefore, for handling the waste which arise in various section in the factory, for proper handling and composting and to maintain health, including waste in compost yard, the assessee hired the various labours through the Manpower Recruitment Agency, who were charging Service Tax on the charges which they were recovering from the assessee. Further, the said compost among others is used as fertilizers for agricultural purposes, hence the same was sold mostly to farmers and for other agricultural purpose. Thus, the said service is wholly attributable to the manufacture of excisable goods, being sugar, molasses, rectified spirit and denatured spirit. Accordingly, it is fully allowable as input services, and does not call for any disallowance under the scheme of the Act and Rules. The assessee further relied on the ruling in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op Ltd. Vs. CCE  1996 (86) ELT 177 (SC), wherein it is laid down that following directions of Pollution Control Board was a part and parcel of the manufacturing activity and hence, the equipment used for pollution control were bound to be used in the manufacture to the final product. Thus, it can by no stretch of imagination be held that manpower services utilized by the appellant, were only for the sake of handle of the waste product which are not excisable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mumbai vs Rama Krishi Rasayan Ltd on 26 April, 2016

6. Further, we find that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Operative Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2004 (177) ELT 653 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein the bench held in favour of the assessee. We also draw support from the Circular No. 18/96-Cus dated 26/03/1996 wherein a similar issue as to exemption under Notification No. 66/94 for the ammonia plant was doubted by the field officers and CBEC clarified that the fertilizer plant will not only include that unit where the finished end-product viz. fertilizer is produced but all the other units also which are engaged in the production of intermediate products for captive consumption.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1