Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 632 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983

Britannia Industries Ltd. vs Union Bank Of India on 12 September, 1989

The Division Bench in Sathe Biscuits' case (supra) had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Bombay Tyre International Ltd.'s case (supra). In the present case before us also, the Assistant Collector found as a fact that secondary packing of the Petitioner's biscuits in tin boxes and corrugated card-board boxes was not special packing done at the request of the wholesale buyer but was part of the normal packing for marketing these goods.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Assistant Collector Ofcentral Excise & ... vs Madras Rubber Factory Ltd on 20 December, 1986

The interest on the finished goods until the goods are sold and delivered at the factory gate would therefore necessarily, according to the judgment in Bombay Tyres International case (supra) have to be included but interest on finished goods from the date of delivery at the factory gate up to the date of delivery from the sales depot would be an expense in- curred after the date of removal from the factory gate and it would therefore, according to the judgment in Bombay Tyres International case (supra) not be liable to be includ- ed since it would add to the value of the goods after the date of removal from the factory gate. We would therefore have to allow the claim of MRF Ltd. as above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 62 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Cadbury India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 September, 1992

7. In view of the above discussion, we hold that turnover tax if paid in accordance with the relevant statute would be deductible from the assessable value in terms of Section 4, even if it is paid periodically to the concerned taxing authority. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to readjudicate the case in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. (supra) and the decisions of the Tribunal which have been referred to in this order. We further order that while readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe the principles of natural justice.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

In view of our above discussion, we remand the matters to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to read judicate the same after observing the principles of natural justice and allow necessary deductions in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896, Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyres International Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (SC) and Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 730 (SC). The Assistant Collector while readjudicating shall observe the principles of natural justice. The appeals are being disposed of in these terms.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Polymers vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 August, 1990

The ratio of the decision in Godfrey Phillips' case (supra) is in consonance with the decision of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International (supra), and further in consonance with the true basis of excise as explained in several decisions mentioned before. In the premises, on the facts of this case, it is clear that the goods were not sold in drums generally in the course of the wholesale trade. There was evidence that 90% of the goods were delivered at the time of removal without being put in drums. There was no evidence that there was any necessity of packing or putting these in drums prior to their sale. It was not necessary that the articles were to be placed in drums for these to be able to generally to enter the stream of wholesale trade or to be marketable. On the other hand, there was evidence that in the wholesale trade, these goods were delivered directly in tankers and deliverable as such. But as a matter of fact' delivery in drums was only to facilitate their transport in small quantities. The manufacture of the goods was complete before these were placed in drums. The completely manufactured product was stored in tanks. From these tanks the goods were removed directly and placed in vehicles for their movement-for 90% of the sales, the vehicle of removals was tankers and 10% of the sales, the vehicle of removals was drums. In the permises, the value of the drums with regard to the fusel oil/Styrene monomer irrespective of whether these were supplied by the assessee or not are not includible in the assessable value of the Styrene Monomer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Hindustan Polymers Etc. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise, Etc. Etc on 23 August, 1989

The ratio of the decision in Godfrey Phil- lips' case (supra) is in consonance with the decision of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International (supra) and further in consonance with the true basis of excise as explained in several decisions mentioned before. In the premises, on 992 the facts of this case, it is clear that the goods were not sold in drums generally in the course of the wholesale trade. There was evidence that 90% of the goods were deliv- ered at the time of removal without being put in drums. There was no evidence that there was any necessity of pack- ing or putting these in drums prior to their sale. It was not necessary that the articles were to be placed in drums for these to be able to generally to enter the stream of wholesale trade or to be marketable. On the other hand, there was evidence that in the wholesale trade, these goods were delivered directly in tankers and deliverable as such. But as a matter of fact, delivery in drums was only to facilitate their transport in small quantities. The manufac- ture of the goods was complete before these were placed in drums. The completely manufactured product was stored in tanks. From these tanks the goods were removed directly and placed in vehicles for their movement--for 90% of the sales, the vehicle of removal was tankers and 10% of the sales, the vehicle of removals was drums. In the premises, the value of the drums with regard to the fusel oil/styrene monomer irrespective of whether these were supplied by the assessee or not, are not includible in the assessable value of the Styrene Monomer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 55 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Vijayawada Bottling Company Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 July, 1993

27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment in the case of Bombay Tyres International (supra) referred to their earlier decision in the case of Atic Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 444 wherein it has been observed that "once the goods have entered the stream of trade and are on their onward journey to the consumer, whether along a short or a long course depending on the nature of the goods and the conditions of the trade, excise is not concerned with what happens subsequently to the goods. It is the first immediate contact between the manufacturer and the trade that is made decisive for determining the wholesale cash price which is to be the measure of the value of the goods for the purpose of excise."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jenson And Nicholson (India) Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 January, 1990

4. After going through the materials on record and pleadings of both the parties, it appears that the petitioners filed various price-lists for approval of the Proper Officer under Rule 173C determining the assessable value only on manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit by deducting from the wholesale price by two orders. The Proper Officer approved the price-list without making any deduction from the wholesale price by the first order and secondly by allowing some deductions from the wholesale price by the second order. The petitioner Company preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the said two orders. There is no stay order. Secondly, the petitioner moved the first writ petition and obtained an interim order whereunder they went on removing the goods on the basis of the assessable value determined both on the basis of manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit the said writ petition is, however, disposed of directing the Collector (Appeals) to determine the assessable value in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres (International) . The Collector (Appeals) disposed of the appeal on 31.7.1984. The petitioner Company, however, submitted Chartered Accountants' certificate in regard to the break up of post-manufacturing expenses. Thereafter, the impugned notices dated 17.12.1984 and 1.1.1985 have issued under Section 11A read with Rule 9 (2) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why they would not be required to pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- as differential duty. The said show cause notice was duly replied by the petitioner. A personal hearing was allowed on 27.2.1985 which was duly attended and the petitioner also filed a writ application. The petitioner in the meantime submitted various revised price-lists claiming deductions for the first time under different heads. A Show Cause Notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain why the deduction claimed by them in the revised price-lists should not be rejected. The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice also. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 31.7.1984 and also filed a stay petition. The instant writ petition was moved on 7th May, 1985 and interim order was obtained.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - 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
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next