Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.49 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai ... vs M/S Emco Ltd on 9 March, 2011
11. The Circular further provides in para 4, that the principle
laid down in Ispat Industries Ltd. would apply to all situations
except where the contract for sale is FOR contract, in the
circumstances identical to the judgment in the case of CCE,
Mumbai-III v. Emco Ltd. (supra) and CCE v. M/s. Roofit
Industries Ltd. (supra). That is, where the ownership, risk in
transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer
on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained
the owner of goods retaining right of disposal. The said circular
further provides that the guidelines and the judgment of Apex
Court may be referred to and based on facts and circumstances of
each case. Further provides past cases should be accordingly
decided.
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Customs And C.E.Nagpur vs M/S. Ispat Industries Ltd on 7 October, 2015
44. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the
issue of inclusion of freight in the assessable value, under the
admitted facts and circumstances, has already been held in favour
of the appellant-assessee relying on the ruling of the Apex Court
in the Ispat Industries (supra).
Commnr.,Customs & Cent.Excise ... vs M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd on 23 April, 2015
11. The Circular further provides in para 4, that the principle
laid down in Ispat Industries Ltd. would apply to all situations
except where the contract for sale is FOR contract, in the
circumstances identical to the judgment in the case of CCE,
Mumbai-III v. Emco Ltd. (supra) and CCE v. M/s. Roofit
Industries Ltd. (supra). That is, where the ownership, risk in
transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer
on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained
the owner of goods retaining right of disposal. The said circular
further provides that the guidelines and the judgment of Apex
Court may be referred to and based on facts and circumstances of
each case. Further provides past cases should be accordingly
decided.
C.C.E., Raigad vs M/S. Ispat Metallics Industries ... on 6 May, 2016
It was clarified that by way of general principle as regards
determination of place of removal, the principle laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of CCE vs Ispat Industries Ltd. may be
applied wherein the Apex Court have reiterated the principle laid
down in Escorts JCB Ltd. to the extent that place of removal is
required to be determined with reference to point of sale, with the
condition that place of removal ( premises) has to be referred
with reference to the premises of the manufacturer. Para 16 of
the ruling of Ispat Industries was reproduced, which reads as
follows: