Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
The ld. counsel citing the Supreme Court decision in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International (supra) urged that the Supreme Court has laid down that the price charged by the manufacturer on a sale by him represents the measure for assessing the levy. The "value" of an excisable article, the Supreme Court held, has to be computed with reference to the price charged by the manufacturer. Here the price charged for the concentrate being available, the question of adding advertisement expenses incurred for the beverage product manufactured by the bottlers will not arise. The ld. counsel also pleaded that neither the Assistant Collector nor the Collector (Appeals) has considered the various contentions raised before them on this issue by the appellants. As regards the demand on royalty charges, the ld. Counsel urged that royalty was charged from bottlers for using "LEHAR" trade mark belonging to the appellants on the beverage product. The ld. Counsel argued that it had no nexus with the sale of concentrate and pointed out that royalty is charged from bottlers of soda using appellants trade mark although there is no sale of concentrate for the purpose. In law the trade mark owner is entitled to charge royalty on such use of trade mark by others. Further, the royalty amount is payable not immediately but only after the sale of soft drinks made by the bottlers immediately on its sale.
Emrc Engg. Mechanical Research India ... vs C.C.E. on 4 November, 1994
The bottlers are not related persons and the transaction with them is on a principal to principal basis and hence valuation has to be under Section 4(l)(a) Central Excises & Salt Act and there is, in such a situation, no scope to invoke Section 4(l)(b). There is no evidence of flow back of extra accrual from customers to appellants and hence no addition can be made to the assessable value under Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. The ld. Counsel urged that department cannot go on the basis of costs for determining assessable value, but regard should be had only to the amount recovered from the customers for the purpose. Tribunal decision - Order No. 35/92-A, dated 6-2-1992 M/s. Passer (India) (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., was cited wherein it was held that resort to cost of production for assessment of duty on the excisable goods is one of the last resorts i.e. when the sale price of the goods is not available.
Union Of India And Ors vs Mahindra And Mah1Ndra Ltd. Bombay on 8 March, 1995
The two are inextricably intertwined. The agreement with the bottlers is thus an indivisible and composite agreement for the sale of concentrate to them by the appellants and for the grant of licence to them for the use of the appellants trade mark on the beverages manufactured by the bottlers. It is certainly not as if a party not agreeing to buy the concentrate from the appellants could separately enter into agreement with appellants for manufacture of beverages like Lehar Pepsi, Lehar 7 Up, etc. It may be noticed that it was the absence of such indivisible and composite agreement for the purchase of CKD parts in the collaboration agreement in Mahindra & Mahindra case (supra) decided by the Supreme Court that made the Supreme Court hold that royalty paid to the foreign collaboration in that case had no nexus with the import of CKD parts. In this context, the Supreme Court in that case had observed, "The crucial aspects appearing in the case are... that the CKD packs and spares were supplied to the respondents by the collaborator not at a concessional price but at the price at which they were sold to others, that, as agreed by the respondents, the option was entirely with the respondents to order the parts as per their requirements, that there was no OBLIGATION on the respondents to purchase the CKD packs at all..." (emphasis supplied).
Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. ... vs I.T.O Nagpur on 20 August, 1991
12. It has been contended by the appellants that in order to include any amount in the assessable value on the ground that it is an additional consideration, the burden of proof is on the department. The burden of proof is the obligation to establish a fact by proof. The responsibility of offering convincing proof rests upon the affirmitive side in the case proceedings. According to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act when any fact is specially with the knowledge of any person, the burden of providing that fact is upon him. In an adjudicating proceeding, the initial burden of establishing the charge lies on the department but when once this initial burden is discharged then the onus shifts to the delinquent to rebut the evidence against him. In the instant case before us, the appellant had not produced any evidence to establish that the advertisement expenses incurred by them formed part of the value of their product. No correlation with the value of the product and the advertisement component therein, if any, had been established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions have ruled that it is for the assessee to disclose all the primary facts before the assessing authorities to enable them to arrive at the correct tax liability (refer The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. v. Income Tax Officer -1991 (2) SCALE 62 at page 362, and also refer Tribunal's decision in the case of Ruchi Associates v. Collector of Customs -1992 (59) E.L.T. 155 (Tribunal).
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Collector Of Customs vs Birla Yamaha Ltd. on 10 January, 1995
Citing the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector v. Birla Yamaha - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 170 the ld. Counsel pointed out that as held in that case here also royalty charged is not a condition for the sale of the concentrate and hence is not includible in the assessable value. The ld. Counsel argued that the department has to show that price is not the sole consideration before they can add any amount as extra accruals to the assessable value.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 30 December, 1994
The ld. Counsel cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector v. Maruti Udyog - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 390 as confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1989 (22) ECR 482 in the case of Collector v. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Mere payment of royalty does not create mutuality of interest.
Duke And Sons (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 29 December, 1989
The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Duke & Sons (supra) was given in the peculiar facts of that case where the Tribunal observed, "The agreement under which the buyers are permitted to use the trade mark is not filed either before the lower authorities or before us. Therefore, no views can be expressed as to whether it is interlinked with the sale of 'concentrate'. "In para 6 of that decision the Tribunal observed," There is no evidence on record to indicate that the 'concentrate' is sold only to those who also enter into agreement to buy the 'trade mark'." We have seen that in the present case, on the contrary, there is such evidence. Hence, it is in the present case, on the contrary, there is such evidence.
Ruchi Associates vs Collector Of Customs on 21 May, 1991
12. It has been contended by the appellants that in order to include any amount in the assessable value on the ground that it is an additional consideration, the burden of proof is on the department. The burden of proof is the obligation to establish a fact by proof. The responsibility of offering convincing proof rests upon the affirmitive side in the case proceedings. According to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act when any fact is specially with the knowledge of any person, the burden of providing that fact is upon him. In an adjudicating proceeding, the initial burden of establishing the charge lies on the department but when once this initial burden is discharged then the onus shifts to the delinquent to rebut the evidence against him. In the instant case before us, the appellant had not produced any evidence to establish that the advertisement expenses incurred by them formed part of the value of their product. No correlation with the value of the product and the advertisement component therein, if any, had been established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of decisions have ruled that it is for the assessee to disclose all the primary facts before the assessing authorities to enable them to arrive at the correct tax liability (refer The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. v. Income Tax Officer -1991 (2) SCALE 62 at page 362, and also refer Tribunal's decision in the case of Ruchi Associates v. Collector of Customs -1992 (59) E.L.T. 155 (Tribunal).