Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 191 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi vs Maruti Udyog Ltd on 27 February, 2002

Commissioner Ce & St (Ltu) Mumbai vs Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee ... on 28 April, 2023

7.3. We further find that in a similar matter, in the context of excise duty came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appeal (Civil) 3783 of 2000 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (2) SCR 99 dated 27/02/2002] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in the judgement dated 27.02.2002, as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deposit Insurance And Credit vs Commissioner Ce & St(Ltu) Mumbai on 28 April, 2023

7.3. We further find that in a similar matter, in the context of excise duty came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appeal (Civil) 3783 of 2000 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (2) SCR 99 dated 27/02/2002] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in the judgement dated 27.02.2002, as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Park Hospital vs Service Tax - Kolkata on 11 February, 2025

(1) The Appellant submits that due to ongoing controversy about the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property, during the relevant period the Appellant neither collected nor paid any service tax on the rent received from its various tenants. Considering the retrospective amendment in Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Appellant after admitting the service tax liability on the rent collected from the various tenants during the relevant period, calculated the service tax liability amounting to Rs.1,67,181/- under cum-tax basis in terms of Section 67(2) of the Act and deposited the same along with applicable interest amounting to Rs.86,406/- on 02.09.2013. [Copy of the receipted challans and the requisite calculations are available in Annexure -A/14, page no. 367 to 389 of the Appeal paper book.] (2) The Appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner without any application of mind ignored the evidences submitted with the reply to show cause notice and arbitrarily did not give the benefit of cum-tax which otherwise is legally available to the Appellant since the Appellant had not charged and collected any service tax while raising the invoice for rent from its tenants, it was entitled to the benefit of cum-tax in terms of Section 67(2) of the Act. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [(2002) 141 ELT 3] held that "The sale price respondent has to be regarded as the entire price inclusive of excise duty because it is the respondent who has, by necessary implication, taken on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods sold and has not 13 Service Tax Appeal No.75776 of 2014 sought to release any sum in addition to the price obtained by it from the purchaser. The purchaser was under no obligation to pay any amount in excess of what had already been paid as the price of the scrap."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deposit Insurance And Credit vs Commissioner Ce & St(Ltu) Mumbai on 28 April, 2023

7.3. We further find that in a similar matter, in the context of excise duty came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appeal (Civil) 3783 of 2000 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (2) SCR 99 dated 27/02/2002] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in the judgement dated 27.02.2002, as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Ce & St (Ltu) Mumbai vs Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee ... on 28 April, 2023

7.3. We further find that in a similar matter, in the context of excise duty came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appeal (Civil) 3783 of 2000 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (2) SCR 99 dated 27/02/2002] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in the judgement dated 27.02.2002, as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cdc Carbolic (I) Pvt. Ltd. And C. Daniel vs Cce on 30 April, 2004

9. As noted above, the Department ha come in appeal on two grounds viz (a) the value of clearance should not have been taken as cum-duty price and (b) Mandatory Penalty under Section 11AC should have been imposed even prior to the introduction of Section 11AC. As regards the first ground, we find that this issue is no longer res integra as the issue as has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Delhi vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. reported in 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC) wherein it was held that cum duty price when charged, then in arriving at the excisable value of the goods the element of duty which is payable has to be excluded. It was also held therein that wholesale price which is charged is deemed to be the value for the purpose of levy of excise duty under Section 4 of the Act, but the element of excise duty, sales tax or other taxes which is included in the whole sale price is to be excluded in arriving at the assessable value. It was also held by the Apex Court that sale price realised by the assesse is to be regarded as the entire price inclusive of duty when he has by necessary in implication, taken on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods sold and has not sought to realise any sum in addition to the price obtained by it from the purchaser and that purchaser is under no obligation to pay any amount in excess of what had already been paid as the price of the goods. As regards the second ground, we have already held above that provisions of Section 11AC cannot be invoked prior to the date of its insertion in the statute book.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Jagatjit Industries Ltd on 10 September, 2009

I find that this judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court also in the case of Commissioner vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra). However, the respondent would be liable to pay interest on the Cenvat credit of Rs. 91,000/- which had been utilized prior to its reversal and accordingly, the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 8,000/- is correct.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Indoz Polymers And Products And Indoz ... on 27 July, 2006

5. The review petition filed by the department in the Supreme Court has since been dismissed vide CCE, New Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2005 (177) ELT A102 (SC). The respondents are entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act in the matter of determination of assessable of the subject goods. L.d. Commissioner has rightly allowed this relief to the assessee. The challenge in the present appeals against this part of the orders of the commissioner fails. The rest of the challenge, regarding penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB succeeds to the extent aforesaid.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next