Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)M/S. Srf Ltd vs Cce, Trichy on 25 November, 2009
The learned JCDR also referred to SRF Ltd vs Commissioner 2006 (13) ELT 186 (Tri-LB) and Commissioner vs Allied Photographics India Ltd 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC). The learned JCDR argued that, where it could be shown that the incidence of duty had been passed on atleast indirectly to a customer by the person claiming refund of the duty, the claim would be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.
Union Of India vs Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 4 February, 2000
In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on Union of India vs Solar Pesticides Pvt Ltd 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) and DCW Ltd and another vs Union of India and others 2006 (72) RLT 103 (Guj). It was also argued that, where the cum-duty price was reflected in the GP1s/invoices, there was no need of looking into the Balance-Sheet to find out as to whether the duty amount was considered as receivable or not.
Transformers And Electricals Kerala ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 September, 2007
Reliance was also placed on Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd vs Commissioner 2005 (188) ELT 60 (Tri-Bang). The learned Counsel submitted that the invoices issued by the appellants showed a composite price without separately indicating duty amount and that the price remained the same irrespective of the rate of duty. On these facts, the appellants should be held to have discharged their burden of proof that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to their customers.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
In such a scenario, it has inevitably to be inferred that the assessee was only altering their profit margin so as to maintain consistency of price inasmuch as every manufacturer would sell his goods at something above the cost-price + duty as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Union of India 1997 (89)ELT 247 (SC) and by this Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd vs Commissioner 2004 (163) ELT 467 (Tri) and in the case of Interach Building Products (supra). Therefore, the appellant is not bound to succeed on the ground of uniformity of prices in so far as the refund claims in question are concerned.
Jct Ltd. vs Dy Cit & Anr. on 8 October, 2004
In such a scenario, it has inevitably to be inferred that the assessee was only altering their profit margin so as to maintain consistency of price inasmuch as every manufacturer would sell his goods at something above the cost-price + duty as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Union of India 1997 (89)ELT 247 (SC) and by this Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd vs Commissioner 2004 (163) ELT 467 (Tri) and in the case of Interach Building Products (supra). Therefore, the appellant is not bound to succeed on the ground of uniformity of prices in so far as the refund claims in question are concerned.
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 September, 1997
In this connection, the learned JCDR referred to Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Commissioner 2009 233) ELT 511 (Tri-Mum). It was also pointed out that any certificate from Chartered Accountant had not been produced by the appellants before the original authority. Such a certificate was produced only before the appellate authority and, that too, without the supporting documents. According to the learned JDCR, the C.As certificate would not be conclusive evidence of the burden of duty having been retained by the refund-claimant.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S.Flow Tech Power on 23 January, 2006
In support of the reliance placed on the Chartered Accountants certificate, the learned Counsel relied on Commissioner vs Flow Tech Power 2006 (202) ELT 404 (Mad) and also on order dated 17.7.2008 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2007.
Itc Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 28 February, 2003
In this connection, the learned Counsel has relied on ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd vs Commissioner 2002 (146) ELT 582 (Tri-Bang) and Collector vs Metro Tyres Ltd 1995 (80) ELT 410 (Tri).
Interach Building Products (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 17 January, 2005
In such a scenario, it has inevitably to be inferred that the assessee was only altering their profit margin so as to maintain consistency of price inasmuch as every manufacturer would sell his goods at something above the cost-price + duty as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Union of India 1997 (89)ELT 247 (SC) and by this Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd vs Commissioner 2004 (163) ELT 467 (Tri) and in the case of Interach Building Products (supra). Therefore, the appellant is not bound to succeed on the ground of uniformity of prices in so far as the refund claims in question are concerned.