Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Atic Industries Ltd vs H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector Of Central ... on 14 February, 1975

Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988

This has been explained in Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Ors., [ 1975] 3 S.C.R . 563. This has also been explained in Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc. etc. . [1984] l S.C.R. 347 at 375. It has to he reiterated that the valuation must be on the basis of wholesale cash price at the time when the manufactured goods enter into the open market.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 540 - Full Document

Indo-National Limited And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 April, 1979

48. The propositions of law enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court are unexceptionable. No conflict of legislative competence of the Parliament and that of the State Legislature is really raised in this batch of Writ Petitions. The doctrine of pith and substance comes into play only when there is overlapping of one legislative field over the other. The contention put forward by the assessees is that the levy of excise duty on the post-manufacturing costs, expenses and profits is not within the scope of Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Act. It may be recalled that in the Voltas' case and the Atic Industries' case decided by the Supreme Court, though it was contended that Section 4 of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment, comprehended within its ambit, the post-manufacturing costs, expenses and profits for the purpose of levy of excise duty, its validity was not sought to be sustained by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance. In our opinion, the doctrine of 'reading down' but not the doctrine of 'pith and substance' is to be invoked In these cases.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Dunlop India Ltd. And India Tyre And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 7 December, 1980

7. From the above decisions it is clear that for the purpose of levy of excise duty the value of the petitioner's product has to be determined only by taking into account the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit. The respondents have not disputed the case of the petitioner that its products are sold through a large number of sales depots which are situated in different parts of the country at a uniform price called the billing price and that the said price takes in besides the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, other post manufacturing expenses like selling and administrative expenses, salaries, wages paid to selling staff, advertisement expenses, godown charges, freight and distribution expenses. It cannot therefore be denied that the so-called billing price at which the petitioner sells its products through its different depots includes not only manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, but various other items of expenditure involving post manufacturing operations. Such post manufacturing expenses will have to be excluded from the billing price to determine the excisable value of the petitioner's profits. The respondents do not challenge the fact that this would be the position if the situation is tested in the light of the principles laid down in A. K. Roy v. Voltas Limited and Atic Industries v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise .
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Food Specialities Limited vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise ... on 31 August, 1976

Shri H.L. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. (supra) and in Atic Industries case, the Government of India was in error in holding that the petitioners and Nestle's were not parties dealing at arm's length merely because they were not unfamiliar and independent parties. He further urged that brand name was the property of Nestle's Products (India) Ltd., had included in the price at which the Nestle's sold that products in the market could not possibly enter the 'wholesale cash price' at which the products could be sold by the petitioner to Nestle's or any other buyer since the brand name of Nestle's was not petitioner's to sell.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A Company Incorporated Under The vs Union Of India Through The on 7 September, 2012

Learned Senior Counsel U.S.Jagtap 43 of 49 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:04:54 ::: 2744-12-wp-Judgment=.doc Mr. Sridharan's submission in terms of judgment in the cast of Atic Industries Ltd. Vs. H.H. Dave, Assistant Controller of Central Excise and Ors. Reported in 1978, (2) E.L.T. (J 444) S.C that the price which is relevant for the purpose of Excise duty was the price when the good first entered in the stream of trade is required to be accepted. In the present case, when the petitioners sell the car to the dealer, the goods enter the stream of trade for the first time and, therefore, the amount at which the car is sold to the dealer would be the assessable value on which the Excise duty would be payable. In the present case, the expenses incurred by the dealer for PDI and said services has nothing to do with the term "servicing' mentioned in the transaction value and as such, the said expenses cannot be added to assessable value.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Y Ganoo - Full Document

Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) P. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 May, 1980

40. From what has been stated hereinabove, it appears to us that none of the points urged by Mr. Mukherjee can be sustained and although this court in exercising its discretionary powers in the writ constitutionaljurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the impugned orders of assessments, this court can in our opinion, quash the impugned assessments made in violation of law as laid down in the Voltas case and Atic's case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - A N Sen - Full Document

East Anglia Plastics (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 3 October, 1980

75. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the assessable value of the dye-stuffs manufactured by the appellants must be taken to be the price at which they were sold by the appellants to ICI and Atul less 18% trade discount, and not the price charged by ICI and Atul to their dealers. The Supreme Court also directed the respondents in that case to refund to the appellants the amount collected in excess of the correct duty of excise leviable in accordance with the principles laid down in that judgment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 18 November, 1993

On the proposition that the Show Cause Notice must contain specific allegation of suppression, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Birla Jute Industries Ltd. v. Union of India , in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and in the case of Applied Industrial Products (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise . In this case, in the absence of charge in the Show Cause Notice bringing out suppression of facts by the appellants, the demand cannot extend to the longer period under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act. Moreover, the Collector, by a specific corrigendum of the Show Cause Notice has deleted Section 11A and Rule 9(2) therefrom. Having done so, the adjudicating authority was in error in invoking very same provision. Further, it cannot be stated that there was any suppression by the appellants who have disclosed all particulars to the Department and the learned Counsel pointed out that significantly, even the Show Cause Notice is based on the scrutiny of the appellants' registers only. Moreover, they had followed the procedure of consolidated maintenance of RG 23A Part II accounts for the inputs received and in such a context also, there cannot be any charge of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. The appellants had followed the procedure under the direction and within the knowledge of the Department. Referring to the various Departmental Trade Notices, cited and extracted in the orders of the two Members, the learned Counsel argued that the cross utilisation of Modvat Credit during a month was a recognised situation even by the Department an circulars have laid down procedure by which the cross utilisation are to be adjusted at the end of the month with the submissions and reconciliation of the RT 12 Returns. The learned Counsel urged that even today what the appellants have done with regard to the account will be as per the present existing instructions of the Department. The learned Counsel, further, pointed out that both the Members in their orders had found that RT 12 Returns with all the relevant enclosures have been regularly filed by the appellants. Hence, there could be, according to the appellants, no charge of suppression of facts.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next