Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S Eon Polymers Ltd. vs Cce, Jaipur on 20 March, 2001
6.4 We also find that reliance of department on the case law of EON Polymers Vs CCE Jaipur 2010 (258) ELT 225 (Tri.-Del.) is misplaced. The facts in that particular case related to clandestine removal and for that reason, Tribunal has held that cum duty value was not available to clandestinely removed goods. In the present case however, it is not the allegation that assessee has effected clearances clandestinely. On the other hand, assessee had effected the DTA clearances in a transparent manner, under cover of invoices indicating therein separately price charged and the taxes thereon. The only error committed by the respondent is that they paid duty at the rate of 12.36% on the DTA clearances which, much later, department directed them to pay at the rate of 23.89%. It is also not disputed that payment of duty, albeit at the lower and incorrect rate of 12.36%, was known to department since ER-2 returns were filed by the assessee throughout the period in question.
Section 14 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Asian Alloys Limited And Mr. Pawan ... vs Cce on 28 July, 2006
6.6 We find that Nagareeka Exports Pvt.Ltd. case [2003 (159) ELT 891 (Tri.-Mum.) has been relied upon in a subsequent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Alloys Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi-III 2006 (203)ELT 252 (Tri.-Del.) where the Tribunal distinguished the clandestine removal from other types of DTA clearances.
Section 14 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S.Kumar Arch Tech Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 22 February, 2013
6.3 We also find that lower appellate authority has correctly relied upon the ratio of Tribunals Larger Bench decision in Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur-II 2013 (290) ELT 372 (Tri.-LB), the relevant para-8 of which order is worthy of reproduction :
Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S.Maruti Udyog Ltd on 17 May, 2016
Even in the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Delhi Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC), which is relevant to this issue, the Apex Court inter alia held as under :
The Asstt. Collector Of Centralexcise & ... vs Data India Ltd on 7 May, 1996
"5. A reading of? the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that the wholesale price which is 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 Others 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."