Shakti Beverages Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 26 February, 2003
A similar view was taken by the Tribunal in Calcom Electronics Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.69 seconds)Documents citing
Asha Pavro Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex., Mumbai-Iii on 22 January, 2002
Cyient Dlm Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, Mysuru ... on 18 August, 2023
(iii) Manik Machinery Mafs. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner
of C. Ex., Mumbai=2003 (157) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.-Mum.)
Fluidtherm Technology Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 June, 2017
4. Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. He relied upon section note 4 to Section XVI of Central Excise Act and argued that supplementary items along with the furnace manufactured by the appellant contribute together to a clearly defined function. Accordingly, duty is liable to be paid. He relied upon Tribunal's decision in the case of Asha Pavro Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai-III - 2002 (143) ELT 543 (Tri.-Mumbai). He submits that duty of excise is charged on goods manufactured in the factory. In the present case, duty has been sought to be levied on items which are not manufactured in the appellants factory, but are procured from outside supplied to the customer along with the goods manufactured in the appellants factory.
Cimmco Birla Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 May, 2003
2. The issue raised in this appeal by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 9-9-2002 is whether the inclusion of cost of bought out items in the assessable value of goods manufactured and supplied on contract basis for supply of complete Cement Plant Machines is justified. The adjudicating authority has demanded the duty on the ground that the bought out items were essential for completion of Main Cement Plant Equipment. Therefore, according to the adjudicating authority value of such integral parts/components procured from the sub-contractor were to be added in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the assessee in arriving at the duty liability. The above view was approved by the Commissioner (Appeals). He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asha Pavro Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 543
1