Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. & Others vs The Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 April, 1985

Indian Explosives Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 August, 1995

Again on Section 4 unamended the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bata Shoe Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1985 (21) E.L.T. 9 is also relevant wherein the Supreme Court held that before the question of availability of exemption under a notification of goods leviable to duty ad valorem, the first essential step is to determine the value of the article in the manner prescribed in Section 4 of the Act. The Court observed that the fact that on such a computation, the article may ultimately be found to be exempted from excise duty (as was the result in that case) does not have any bearing on the question of applicability of Section 4 of the Act for determining its 'value' for the purposes of duty. The expression 'for the purposes of duty' occurring in Section 4, the court held, has a wide import.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kapoor Engg. Works vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 July, 1993

29. In their reply to the Show Cause Notice they claimed deductions from the aggregate value of clearances on account of packing and handling charges, supervision/erection charges, trading, exempted goods, bills cancelled and repairing charges. They further submitted that in the light of the judicial pronouncement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bata Shoe Company v. Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta for arriving at the deemed value in terms of Section 4, the quantum of duty element has to be deducted from the normal price. They had not paid any Central Excise duty. In fact, they had not obtained even Central Excise licence. They had not specified any element for deduction before the clearances of the goods.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Alpine Industries vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 September, 1995

10. On merits, therefore, the classification of the goods as arrived at by the lower authorities has to be upheld. The Advocate agreed that after amendment of Notification 27,1990 it would not be available. However, two points further raised by the Advocate have merit. The first is that in arriving at the assessable value, the duty element, if any, has to be excluded there are any number of decisions on this issue following Supreme Court judgment in Bata Shoe Co. v. Collector of Central Excise - ;985 (21) E.L.T. 9. The Departmental Representative was not able to show that such abatement had been allowed in working out the duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Corner Stone Brands Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 26 March, 1996

In Bata Shoe Company (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors. - 1985 (21) E.L.T 9 (S.C.) the Supreme Court considered a case of liability to duty in regard to footwear depending upon its value. Footwear was completely exempt from duty where the value did not exceed Rs. 5 per pair. If it exceeded Rs. 5, duty was 10% ad valorem. For 1967 and 1968 the wholesale price of footwear was Rs. 6.25 per pair. According to the manufacturer, the assessable value was only Rs. 4.94 though the wholesale price was Rs. 6.25 and therefore claimed exemption. The department did not agree with this view. The question turned on the method of determining the assessable value. The assessable value would not include the duty element as is clear from Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. The Supreme Court observed as follows :
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohan And Co. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 May, 1987

Shri Ajwani has referred to another judgment of Hon'bie High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bata Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa and Ors. reported in 1979 ELT (3 464) where it was held that while determining the value of goods under an exemption notification, the duty leviable is also to be taken into consideration because unless the duty is leviable, the exemption cannot be granted. The Hon'ble High Court had further held that the value for the purpose of exemption notification is the real value after the duty has been paid and calculated and not the deemed value of Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next