Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Coromandel Fertilizers Limited vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 August, 1984
(i) Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1984 (17) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.)].
Philips India Ltd. vs Cce on 8 July, 1997
It was submitted that in view of this position, since the activity taken benefited both the manufacturer and the dealer, this 1% could no be considered as an expense incurred on behalf of the manufacturer alone and should be granted since the decision of Philips India case had been rendered after the decision in the case of Madras Rubber Factory.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors vs Bharat Heavy Electricals on 14 August, 1997
(i) From the Order, it is found that a penalty of 100% of the duty determined under Section 11AC has been arrived at without coming to or giving any reasons why the penalty should be at that level. We find that Section 11AC provides for a mandatory penalty equivalent to 100% of the duty determined. However, in each case, it need not be automatically 100% and there should be good reasons arrived at to sustain it at that level. The Apex Court has laid down the law on this aspect in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricais [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.G)], which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Traders v. CC, Chennai [2002 (150) E.L.T. 1305 (Tribunal)], being bound by the same, we cannot uphold the 100% penalty as imposed, we would consider that a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs would suffice the ends of this case.
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Govt. Of India And Ors. Etc vs Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Etc on 3 May, 1995
(c) They also submitted that the reliance placed on Para 20 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Govt. of India v. Madras Rubber Factory reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) has to be read with Paras 19 and 21 of the said decision. In Para 19 of the said decision, the Apex Court referred to the observations in the case of Bombay Tyre International wherein the Apex Court had held that all expenses incurred on account of several factors which contributed to its value up to the date of sale are liable to be included in the assessable value and the Apex Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory, after referring to these observations in these two paragraphs came to a conclusion that after sale services and marketing and selling organisation expenses could not be deducted from the prices and those observations have to be understood in the context in which they had been made and would not apply in this case, wherein assessee did not incur any expense after removal of the goods and does not collect any amount from the dealers after the removal of the goods. It was submitted that if the appellants had collected 1% from the dealers, resulting in effectively passing of 29% of discount but claimed deduction of 30%, then 1% could not be allowed as deduction. However, the appellants submitted that no part of the discount extended by the dealers was given back by the dealers to them. It was specifically submitted that in a manufacture where 30% discount was claimed, the entire 30% was extended and in the subsequent periods where 29% discount was claimed, the entire 29% was passed on and duty was calculated accordingly.
Kalyani Traders, Shri M. Ranganathan, ... vs Cc on 22 October, 2002
(i) From the Order, it is found that a penalty of 100% of the duty determined under Section 11AC has been arrived at without coming to or giving any reasons why the penalty should be at that level. We find that Section 11AC provides for a mandatory penalty equivalent to 100% of the duty determined. However, in each case, it need not be automatically 100% and there should be good reasons arrived at to sustain it at that level. The Apex Court has laid down the law on this aspect in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricais [1998 (99) E.L.T. 33 (S.G)], which has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Traders v. CC, Chennai [2002 (150) E.L.T. 1305 (Tribunal)], being bound by the same, we cannot uphold the 100% penalty as imposed, we would consider that a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs would suffice the ends of this case.
1