Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Kelvinator Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 26 March, 1991

Volvo India Limited vs Cce on 4 January, 2005

It is for the maintenance of the vehicle during its operation. That all vehicles require servicing during their operating life cannot be taken to mean that servicing is in connection with the sale or by reason of sale. Such servicing is by reason of and in connection with the operation of the vehicle. That assessable value should take in only expenses in connection with the manufacture of the goods is made clear by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eicher India Limited (supra) case when it ruled that the said provision would be subject to the charging provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act as also Sub-Section (1) of Section 4. The Court further observed that the expressions "by reason of sale" or "in connection with the sale" contained in the definition of transaction value refer to such goods which is subject to excise duty and not to activities which are not excisable. The Apex Court also has cautioned that Section 3 of the Act being the charging section, the definition of 'transaction value' must be read "in the text and context thereof" and not de'hors the same. thus, just as the value of an item, which is not excisable (though sold with the excisable item) cannot form part of the assessable value, cost of a service which is not part of the sale of the goods cannot also form part of the assessable value. The life time service of a vehicle is not part of sale of the vehicle. It is an entirely different activity. Only the serviced provided by reason of the sale or in connection with the sale can alone be included in the sale transaction. In the present case that servicing is the free service provided upon 10,000 Km. run and not the life time service procured through a separate agreement.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rohan Coach Builders vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 August, 1997

2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate submits that the description of the final product input and components in the declaration is the same for all type of manufacture under Chapter Heading 8702 or 8703. It is due to inadvertent mistake that they had missed to put the Chapter Heading 8702 and 8403. It is submitted that there is no cross utilisation of inputs, as this is the same input which goes into the manufacture of vehicle. They had filed classification list under Rule 173Q and other documents reflected under Chapter Heading 8703. It is their contention that such type of procedural lapse have been condoned by the Tribunal as can be seen in number of cases as cited in Khosla Cast Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 691, Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 175, Chamundi Steel Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 563 and Roche Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 127. It is therefore, his submission that due to this inadvertent lapse of not putting the Chapter heading 8703 in the initial declaration they cannot be denied the benefit of Modvat credit nor penalty can be imposed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.S.P. Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Central Excise on 19 September, 1997

In the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 175, it was held that minor variation in sub-heading number is not relevant when the goods fall under the same Chapter heading specified in the Notification and hence Modvat cannot be denied on the ground of variation in sub-headings. This judgment of the Tribunal referred to earlier judgment as well on this point.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1