Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.03 seconds)
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Cce on 6 October, 1998 cites

Lakshmi Machine Work Ltd. vs Union Of India on 10 April, 1991

This was a decision dated 10.1.1995. prior to that the High Court of Madras had held in Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. v. Union of India decided on 10.4.1991 that notional interest on customers security deposit was includible in the assessable value only if such consideration had a nexus with the sale price. The court upheld the validity of a circular of the Government to that effect issued on 20.10.1986 and held as invalid a subsequent memorandum dated 13.6.1990 modifying the earlier one and stating that there was no need to establish separately the nexus between the deposit and the price. In view of this position and the case made out by the appellant that the income from the investments made out of the deposits received did not result in the lowering of the price of their goods, the demand on this account fails. The time bar is an additional factor on which also the appellant deserves to succeed as the fact of receipt of the deposits which is primary information had been brought to the notice of the department.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Metal Box India Ltd vs The Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 10 January, 1995

9. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We have perused the record as also the decisions cited. The main controversy is whether the income by way of interest, capital gains from the investments made by the appellant out of the deposit amounts received by the appellant should be included in the assessable value of the Motorcycles sold by them. The adjudicating authority has held such income to be includible in the assessable value of the motorcycles sold by the appellant relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The appellant's plea is that the price of motorcycles had not been depressed taking into account the income from such investments. It is contended that such income is income for separate activity not relating to manufacture and sale. As to the allegation and finding that the motorcycles had been sold at prices below the cost of production, the plea is that the price has been fixed on commercial considerations to enable their product to be competitive against the products of competitors. We find from the statements filed by the appellant that the prices of Hero Honda Motorcycles were slightly higher than the prices of similar models manufactured by other manufacturers like TVS (Suzuki) and Bajaj (Kawasaki) but less than the prices of Escort (Yamaha) Motorcycles. It has also been contended that the Motorcycles were sold by the appellant to wholesalers in Calcutta for sale to buyers there who had not booked for the same and that the motorcycles were sold to them at the same price at which they had been sold to other purchasers who had made bookings. On this point the Senior Departmental Representative submitted that this plea had not been advanced before the Commissioner and had, accordingly, not been considered by him and being a question of fact raised for the first time before the Tribunal, it should not be considered. We find that this plea is valid as there is no submission by the appellant to that effect recorded in the impugned order. In the present appeal memorandum also such a ground has also not been referred to. We, therefore, do not allow this contention of appellant having supplied Motor vehicles to dealers of Calcutta at prices equal to the prices at which they sold them where deposits had been taken.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Indian Oxygen Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 July, 1988

11. The Commissioner has held that as appellant had sold motorcycles at the depot near the factory to institutional buyers at prices higher than the prices charged at factory gate to dealers for sale to persons who had made the booking and given advance deposits, the depot prices should be the basis for assessment. This has been contested by the appellant contending that the institutional buyers were a separate category and sales to them were ex-depot while for dealers, the sales were ex-factory. As held by the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise goods are partly sold from depots and partly from factory the ex-factory price will be the basis of value under Section 4 of the Act even for goods sold from depot. The differential duty demand by raising the factory gate prices charged to wholesalers to the level of the prices charged to institutional purchasers at the depot is not justified. We hold accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 72 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Union Of India vs Lakshmi Machine Works Limited on 6 March, 1995

In this connection, the judgements of the High Court of Madras in Lakshmi Machine Works v. Union of India and Union of India v. Lakshmi Machine Works Limited were referred to by him. In the former judgement, a reference has been made to the circular dated 20.10.1986 issued by the Government stating that additions of notional interest on advances received will arise only in those cases where the authorities are in a position to establish a nexus between the advance deposit received and the depression of the sale price on account of such deposits and it was held that this circular was valid and to be implemented in all cases and that the modification thereof by a subsequent memorandum dated 13.6.1990 and Trade Notice dated 20.10.1990 stating that it is not necessary to establish a nexus between the deposit and the price was illegal and invalid and contrary to Section 4(a) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. Learned Counsel concluded his argument with the plea that apart from their case being strong on merits, the benefit of limitation will also be available to them since the show cause notice dated 5.7.1991 was time barred as the demand of duty being for period June 1986 to January 1991. They had intimated the department about their having received deposits from the persons who had booked Motorcycles and this fact was thus in the knowledge of the department. There was no suppression. Learned Counsel pleaded for the appeal to be allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1