Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.68 seconds)Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. vs Cce on 25 May, 1999
In Hindustan Polymers v. C.C.E. 1989 (43) E.L.T 165 (S.C.), the Supreme Court was discussing the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act and was determining as to which packing was includible in the assessable value.
Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Prtg. Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India on 26 October, 1982
In the second case of Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Packing Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1982 (10) E.L.T. 821 (Guj.), the Gujarat High Court had undertaken a similar exercise. The ratio of these two judgments is not even remotely applicable to the belief of the Commissioner that after packing only, the lubricating oils became marketable. Before the Commissioner, three orders were cited to show that packing did not amount to manufacture.
Indian Oil Corporation vs Cce on 1 January, 1800
In the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1987 (27) E.L.T. 482, the Tribunal had held that where the goods were cleared in bulk from the refinery and where they were later repacked and sold in packing, the valuation should be made in the form in which it was removed from the factory and that its subsequent repacking in containers was not a material aspect. The assessees had cited two other judgments also viz.
E.I.D. Parry India Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 14 March, 1986
in the case of ED Parry Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 18) and Prabhat Packaging Corpn. 1990 (47) E.L.T. 102. The ld. Commissioner overcame this hurdle by holding in para 44 as under:
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another on 8 November, 1977
11. The Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. U.O.I. 1978 E.L.T. (J 564) held that the percentage of sale at the factory gate was not material.
The Finance Act, 2018
Collector Of Central Excise vs Ashok Leyland Limited on 17 February, 1987
In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. 1987 (29) E.L.T. 530 the Tribunal was examining the valuation of stock transferred to regional sale offices. Such stock transfer could not be called as "sale". How ever, the Tribunal ruled that such stock transfer should also be assessed at price at which such goods were sold to wholesale dealers. Therefore, not much can be made of the fact that the transfers of lubricating oil in tankers sent to M/s. Unique Packers were not sale.
Southern Petrochemical Indus. Corpn. ... vs Cce on 6 November, 1998
The same view was held by the Tribunal in the case of Southern Bottlers P. Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 427 (Tri.). In terms of these judgments, the Tribunal in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. 1989 (40) E.L.T. 86 (Tri.) held even a single sale would constitute the basis for determination of wholesale cash price. In making this, the Tribunal had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Voltas Ltd. 1(1977 E.L.T. (J.177)].
1