Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (3.28 seconds)
Documents citing Assistant Collector Ofcentral Excise & ... vs Madras Rubber Factory Ltd on 20 December, 1986

Govt. Of India And Ors. Etc vs Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Etc on 3 May, 1995

PART - V The last issue urged before us relates to the method of computation of assessable value in a cum-duty price. The issue is whether the excise duty should be first deducted or the permissible deductions should be first deducted from the selling price? After some discussion, the learned counsel for the assessees agreed that the decision in Para-22 of the judgment dated December 20, 1986 (Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory) represents the correct view. We also find ourselves in respectful agreement with the said holding. Accordingly, we direct that the method of computation of assessable value shall be the one indicated in Para-22 of the said judgment which we re-produce hereinbelow for the reason that the judgment has since been reviewed and recalled. The paragraph runs as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 114 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Hindustan Gas And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 October, 1991

Thereafter, this decision of MRF was recalled by the Supreme Court vide order reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 703 (SC), Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. where it was held that "valuation - deductions beyond factory gate whether permissible - valuation in case of cum-duty price - Supreme Court judgment reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 being prima facie inconsistent with the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International - Recalled for fresh consideration."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Associated Pigments Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 November, 1988

The Octroi duty in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International reported in 1983 ELT 1896 and in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory reported in 1987 (27) ELT 553 is an allowable deduction. Loading charges incurred inside the factory gate cannot be deducted but loading and unloading charges and delivery charges incurred beyond the factory gate are deductible. Purchase tax is a tax on raw materials and not on the finished goods. It has, therefore, to be included as an element of cost for manufacture of the finished goods. Hence, it is not deductible from the assessable value. We remand the matter to the Assistant Collector with the directions that he should allow the necessary deductions on account of cost of transportation and delivery, turnover tax and octroi duty in view of these judgments. We further direct that the Assistant Collector will grant an opportunity for personal hearing. The appellants will have to furnish within three months the necessary information of expenses actually incurred for the relevant period for getting these deductions. The appellants stated that in respect of loading and unloading charges paid to coolies beyond the factory gate and conveyance charges paid for local deliveries, they did not have receipts from payees but they had their own vouchers. We direct that since these are petty amounts but are obvious expenses, the Assistant Collector may take a reasonable view in the matter. The appellants further stated that the octroi receipts described litharge as Battery Oxide. They claimed that both were one and the same thing. The Assistant Collector may consult some technical authority in the matter and then proceed accordingly. In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector with the direction that he will complete the re-adjudication proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... vs M/S Vikram Detergent Ltd on 16 January, 2000

In Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory (supra) and Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals V. Union of India 1997 (96) ELT 12(SC) and Government of India and Others V. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. and Others 1995 (4) SCC 349, this Court has held that interest on receivables earned on account of the time lapse between the delivery of the goods and the realisation of the monies is deductible from the assessable value of the goods at the time of removal from the respondents factories. For the same reason, bank charges included in the price on account of clearance of outstation cheques cannot form part of the price of the goods at the time of removal and are as such excludible from the price while calculating the assessable value of the goods. The Tribunal had, as such, correctly allowed this deduction. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed to the extent of disallowing the respondents claim for deduction on account of damage discount and dismissed in so far as the respondents claims for deduction of bank charges are concerned. There will be no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 23 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 May, 1988

In respect of loading and unloading charges we would like to observe that loading charges are incurred in the factory before the clearance of the goods and the same are to be included in the assessable value in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., reported in 1983 ELT 1896 and Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Ors. v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1987 (27) ELT 553 (S.C.).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... vs Vikram Detergent Ltd on 16 January, 2001

In Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory (supra) and Shriram Fertilisers & Chemicals v. Union of India, (1997) 96 ELT 12 SC and Government of India and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. and Others. [1995] 4 SCC 349, this Court has held that interest on receivables earned on account of the time lapse between the delivery of the goods and the realisation of the monies is deductible from the assessable value of the goods at the time of removal from the respondents' factories. For the same reason bank charges included in the price on account of clearance of outstation cheques cannot form part of the price of the goods at the time of removal and are as such excludible from the price while calculating the assessable value of the goods. The Tribunal had, as such, correctly allowed this deduction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - R Pal - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Sriram Pistons And Rings Ltd. on 8 June, 1993

3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, the learned SDR in reply referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Ors v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. and Ors reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (SC). He argued that this decision has been recalled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 703 (SC).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next