Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd on 12 July, 2013
7. As already discussed above, the respondents paid duty on the intermediate goods which are used in the manufacture of power driven pumps which are exempted from duty. There is no change in the price of the final product. Therefore, by following the above decision (supra), the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld and Revenue's appeals are rejected. The cross objection filed by respondent gets disposed of.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
Lastly, in any event, the application dated 11-2-1997 fell in the category of refund claim being made after finalisation of assessment of NIIL and, therefore, Section 11B had to be complied with in terms of Para 104 of the above judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). For above stated reasons, since there was failure to comply with Section 11B, the respondent was not entitled to refund."
Section 72 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Allied Photographics India Ltd on 18 March, 2004
9. The lower authority has relied on the Hon'ble supreme Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner Vs Allied Photographics India Pvt. Ltd. referred herein. The appellants have on their part argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metro Tyres (1997) has not been over-ruled and further argued that the Apex Court in Para 17 of its decision has categorically stated that it was a case of refund claim by the buyer and has not over-ruled any decision which dealt with the claim of refund by the manufacturer and hence distinguishable. A careful scrutiny reveals that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the ruling that uniformity in price before and after assessment did not lead to an inevitable conclusion that incidence of duty was not passed on to the buyer since such uniformity may be due to various factors, yet this does not preclude an assessee to prove his case by showing additional evidences besides the fact of uniformity in price. This is so because the presumption under erstwhile Rule 9B(5) followed by Rule 7 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 is rebuttable. The relevant portion in para 17 is extracted hereunder:-
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Tvs Suzuki Ltd on 21 October, 2009
Lastly, in any event, the application dated 11-2-1997 fell in the category of refund claim being made after finalisation of assessment of NIIL and, therefore, Section 118 had to be complied with in terms of Para 104 of the above judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra). For above stated reasons, since there was failure to comply with Section 118, the respondent was not entitled to refund."
Section 27 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd. on 9 January, 2003
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa v. Christine Hoden (I) Pt. Ltd. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 271 (Tri. - Bom.) observed that keeping the price stable is not a ground, to hold that the manufacturer, had not passed on incidence of duty to the buyers. Price always will include cost of manufacture and duty element and other taxes plus the reasonable profit margin. The question whether incidence of duty has been passed on or not, is a matter of fact, which could be established by leading evidence.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Corona Cosmetics And Chemicals (P) Ltd. on 24 February, 2000
6. From the above, it is clear that respondents opted for provisional assessment for want of cost of raw materials consumed in the manufacture of exempted goods and placed much reliance on the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. In a number of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court as well as Tribunal, the Courts have consistently held that when there is no change in the price of the final product cleared and there is no increase in the rate of duty, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Kanpur Vs Corona Cosmetics & Chemicals (P) Ltd.(supra) dealt identical issue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:-