Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Section 77 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007
In this
regard, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh12 held
that when there is scope for doubt in the mind of an assessee on a
particular issue, the longer limitation period, under proviso to Section
11A(1) cannot be invoked. In the instant case, it is apparent that the
appellant was in doubt regarding the leviability of service tax on the
said transactions as she was under the impression that she was simply
selling the goods at a higher MRP. We are of the opinion that the ratio
of this judgement is applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the
extended limitation period of 5 years under proviso to Section 73(1) of
12 [2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.)]
14
Service Tax Appeal No. 50731 Of 2019
the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the penalty
equivalent to duty is also set-aside.
Section 4 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Central Excise vs Bata (India) Ltd. on 20 July, 1987
"4. A reading of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that the
wholesale price which a charged is deemed to be the value for
the purpose of levy of excise duty, but the element of excise
duty, sales tax or other taxes which is included in the wholesale
price is to be excluded in arriving at the excisable value. This
Section has been so construed by this Court in Asstt. Collector of
Central Excise and Ors. v. Bata India Ltd., [1996] 4 SCC 563,
and it is thus clear that when cum-duty price is charged, then in
arriving at the excisable value of the goods the element of duty
which is payable has to be excluded. The Tribunal has, therefore,
rightly proceeded on the basis that the amount realised by the
respondent from the sale of scrap has to be regarded as a
normal wholesale price and in determining the value on which
excise duty is payable the element of excise duty which must be
regarded as having been incorporated in the sale price, must be
excluded. There is nothing to show that once the demand was
raised by the Department, the respondent sought to recover the
same from the purchaser of scrap. The facts indicate that after
the sale transaction was completed, the purchaser was under no
obligation to pay any extra amount to the seller, namely, the
respondent. In such a transaction, it is the seller who takes on
the obligation of paying all taxes on the goods sold and in such a
case the said taxes on the goods sold are to be deducted
under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) and this is precisely what has been
directed by the Tribunal. There is also nothing to show that the
sale price was not cum-duty.
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 78 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi vs Maruti Udyog Ltd on 27 February, 2002
8. As regards the issue of cum duty benefit, we note that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Commissioner of Central
Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.,9 granted the cum-duty benefits to the
assessee, holding as follows:
Section 75 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Sugar Mills Etc vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 22 August, 1978
5. It will be useful here to refer to the observations of this
Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,
[1978] 4 SCC 271, at page 280, as follows: