Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Bpl Telecom Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Cochin on 8 February, 2002

Roys Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. (Appeals-Ii) on 5 June, 2006

This amounts to obfuscation of the issue. No manufacturer clears the goods directly to the ultimate consumers. The form in which the goods are cleared by the manufacturer is not a relevant factor for deciding whether the impugned goods should be assessed under Section 4 or 4A. The above view is supported by the findings of the CESTAT in the case of BPL Telecom (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin 2004 (168) E.L.T. 251 (Tri.-Bang.) in paragraph 6, as given below:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Godrej Industries Ltd. on 27 January, 2006

We also take note of another decision of the Tribunal in the case of BPL Telecom (P) Ltd., v. CCE, Cochin reported in 2004 (60) RLT 664 (Tri.-Bang.) laying down that once the goods are notified under Section 4A, the same are to be assessed on the basis of MRP, irrespective of the fact that what is the actual price of the same. The Tribunal observed that telephone instruments in that case were cleared in terms of the Packaged Commodities Rules and MRP was declared on the individual cartons. The fact that they were sold in wholesale to big customers against the contract basis is altogether irrelevant for the purposes of their excise valuation. It was further observed that the sale contract price in wholesale cannot constitute distinguishing criterion for valuation under Section 4A or Section 4, because it is normal that all goods, irrespective of whether they fall for valuation under Section 4A or Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, enter trade through wholesale sale at agreed prices. There is no requirement under Packaged Commodities Rules or under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act that goods covered by those provisions should actually be sold in retail.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1