Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.20 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 12 March, 2015

Patparganj vs Adidas India Marketing Pvt Ltd on 5 March, 2020

In Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi/Bhopal11, the Appellant was a manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts thereof. The Appellant had an agreement with the dealers that they shall at all times during the currency of the agreement make efforts to promote the product and its reputation in the allotted territory. The Department formed an opinion that since the dealers incurred expenses under the terms of the agreement, such activities were carried out on behalf of the manufacturer and therefore, would have to be treated as consideration for sale and accordingly, differential duty was required to be paid. The Tribunal held that there was no enforceable legal right with the Appellant to insist on incurring such advertisement expenses and at best, failure on the part of dealer to cause advertisement, could only lead to the cancellation of the agreement. The relevant portion of the decision of the Tribunal is reproduced below:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 3 April, 2017

As in the previous year Hon'ble high court in the assessee's own case has held that incurring of the alleged AMP expenses are international transaction and further whether the functions performed by the assessee were properly compensated or not by the AE, no evidences were submitted before us by the assessee which suggest that the facts as has been decided by the Hon'ble high court are different in this year. Further more Hon'ble high court in the Maruti Suzuki India Limited versus Commissioner of income tax (supra) in para amber 60 at page No. 32 of 45, has held that the revenue has to show that there exists an agreement or arrangement or understanding where the assessee is obliged to spend excessively on advertisement marketing and promotion in order to promote the brand of AE de hors Bright Line Test that provisions of section 92B are satisfied. Before us both the parties have argued at length on the basis of several judicial precedents but has not adduced the relevant facts supported with relevant details or tables.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S Kashmir Tubes vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 31 August, 2017

In M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2015)13 SCC 186, the Supreme Court has held that manufacture implies a change but every change is not a manufacture yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation but something more is necessary and there must be transformation, a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Quippo Energy Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 19 September, 2025

40. At first glance, it may seem that the observations in various decisions discussed above fortify the appellant’s stance that no transformation could have occurred from placing imported Genset into a steel container and fitting the steel container with multiple additional components. The appellant may legitimately argue, in the facts of the present case, like in the aforementioned cases: (i) no change in end use of the subject article is occurring [Servo-Med (supra)]; (ii) merely form is being changed for the sake of convenience [S.R Tissues (supra)] and utility [Maruti Suzuki (supra)]; and (iii) the additional elements do not change the character of the good [Satnam Overseas (supra)]. Consequently, undertaking the necessary process would not amount to “manufacture” under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1944.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd vs Ltu Chennai on 19 February, 2019

3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. She argued that the appellant did not reverse the credit immediately on the decision of the Apex Court with regard to the ineligibility of credit. They had reversed the credit only on 31.1.2011 which is after almost nine months of issuance of show cause notice. From this, it is very much clear that the appellant had intentionally taken wrong credit and therefore is guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty / tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the same in para 6 of the impugned order. She also relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next