Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988
Indian Oxygen case (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case there were ex-factory sales. In the Kelvinator decision of the Supreme Court (supra) also, the Supreme Court has considered the exclusion of costs at the post-warranty period. On the other issue regarding the secondary packing, the ld. D.R. referred to the detailed evidence, as given in the orders of the lower authorities and contended that in this case the transport of the excisable goods is on their own account from the factory to their depots. It is, in fact, evident from the submissions of the appellants made before the Collector (Appeals) as recorded by that authority in the impugned order that if the packing as employed by them was not done, the tins containing goods will get dented and scratched and would become unmarketable. Similarly, without the corrugated cartons the soap would get dented and the wrappers would get torn. There is no evidence of special packing of the articles by the buyer and according to Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, only durable and returnable packing cost is to be excluded. It has been laid down that the degree of the packing necessary to put the goods for sale in the wholesale market, is only the criterion and it is evident from the appellants' own submission, as above, that the cartons and the packings are necessary for marketing.
Hindustan Gas And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 October, 1991
Even in respect of M.R.F. order, the Tribunal had held that in the case of Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. case (supra) and Tungbhadra Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 512 that the recall of the M.R.F. order makes no difference for deducting post removal expenses to the assessee like remuneration to C&F agents. In the case of present appellants, this comprises of 61 per cent of the total expenses of warehousing. The Id. Sr. Counsel, further, referred to the Collector (Appeals) order and pointed out that break-up of the individual elements of cost comprising of the warehousing cost was not an issue before the Collector (Appeals) and as such he went beyond the scope of the appeal. Such an aspect was not examined in any reported case nor was the case remanded for that purpose.
Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 November, 1992
In the Geep Industrial Syndicate case (supra), it,may be noted that the cost of packing the torches in polythene boxes and the further cost of packing in cardboard cartons had, admittedly, been held includible in the assessable value. From the Explanation given by the appellants themselves for the packing in large cartons for the goods, as brought out in the extract from the Collector (Appeals') order, quoted above, it is evident that such packing in the larger cartons cannot be stated to be merely for safety of transport after clearance from the factory gate. As there is no such clearance from factory gate, the goods are to be taken to their own depots. The extract from the Collector (Appeals') order would also indicate that the nature of the packing in this case is such that it cannot be said to be only for the purpose of protection of the goods during transit. It is apparent that such packing will be necessary in order to put the goods, namely, tooth powder and soap in the condition in which they are generally sold in the wholesale market.
Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 2 July, 1991
Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that the degree of packing in this case is one which would be normal packing for the goods in order to avoid any damage to the product as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Patel Aluminium v. Union of India - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 303. In such a view of the matter, it cannot be held that expenses incurred on account of such packing are liable to be deducted from the assessable value. It may be noted in this case that the sales from their depot is the first point at which the goods manufactured by the appellants enter the stream of wholesale trade. Therefore, the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the packing charges in this case are includible in the assessable value is well-founded. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Mrf Ltd. on 24 July, 1990
Since the conclusion in this case regarding the includibility flows from the basics laid down in the Bombay Tyre International decision itself, the argument that the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in M.R.F. case should be considered, notwithstanding, its recall is not acceptable in the light of the discussion above and also considering that the reason for the recall of the M.R.F. decision was that it was not in consonance with the Bombay Tyre International judgment. In such a view of the matter, the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that warehousing expenses are includible in the assessable value is sustainable and is upheld.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Ponds (India) Ltd. on 12 November, 1990
The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has also failed to consider another order of the Collector (Appeals), which being the order of the Coordinate Authority, has to be followed being based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ponds India Ltd. (supra).
Advani Oerlikon Limited vs Union Of India on 2 July, 1991
The Bombay High Court in the case of Advani Oerlikon Ltd. v. Union of India - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.) held that freight, trade discount, excise duty and other taxes alone are deductible. The lower authorities have allowed these deductions to the appellants in the present case.
Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. And ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut And ... on 1 September, 1994
So also in the case oiMopeds India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise -1991 (56) E.L.T. 241 (Tri.), the Tribunal held that packing cost in wooden crates, was includible.
Union Of India & Ors vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc on 30 September, 1985
The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of that Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. -1985 (22) E.L.T. 306 (S.C.). Examining the contention herein in this regard, we may now note the position regarding the packing in the present case as brought out by the Collector (Appeals) in this order. It is noted by the Collector (Appeals) as follows in his order regarding the nature of packing :