Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.45 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 1997
In
this regard, we think it appropriate to to reproduce a passage from Union
of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.[38] wherein the
Constitution Bench quoted with approval from an American judgment in
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United States[39], which is to the
following effect:-
Section 4 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Hari Chand Shri Gopal, Gopal Zarda Udyog ... vs Cce on 7 July, 2003
Learned senior counsel would contend that mixing which is
prefixed by simple fixing by the assessee is not acceptable because the
process of mixing can amount to manufacature as has been held in Gopal
Zarda Udyog (supra) and O.K. Play (India) Limited (supra). As far as the
royalty is concerned, it is urged by him that the assessee had received
royalty charges from buyers who are contract bottling units and separate
assessable value is computable for this type of customers.
Kothari Products Ltd. vs Govt. Of A.P. on 25 January, 2000
The further stand was that mixing amounts to
manufacture as has been laid down in Gopal Zarda Udyog v. CCE, New
Delhi[13], O.K. Play (India) Limited v. CCE, New Delhi II[14], Nestle India
Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh II[15], T.N. State Transport Corporation
Limited v. CCE, Madurai[16], Kothari Products Limited v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh[17], CCE, Guntur v. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works[18], and
Henna Export Corporation v. CCE[19]. The revenue further contended that as
per Section 4 of the Act, the assessable value depends on the nature of
transaction and each price in a transaction was an assessable value and it
cannot be compared if the type of transaction was different. The assessee
received royalty charges from buyers who were contract bottling units and
separate assessable value was computable for these types of customers and
in such cases, the royalty charged by the assessee from the buyers has to
be treated as additional consideration.
M/S. Tega India Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 10 February, 2004
19. To arrive at the said conclusion, it placed reliance on CCE Chennai
v. Fountain Consumer Appliances Limited[20], Tega India Limited v. CCE,
Calcutta II[21], State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores[22], and CCE
Chennai v. Titanium Equipment & Anode Manufacturing Co. Ltd.[23]
M/S. Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 7 May, 2015
20. We have heard Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Indu Malhotra and Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned
senior counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the final product ‘food flavour’ is classified under
Chapter Heading 3302.10 and hence is excisable and dutiable. According to
him, the assessee itself had admitted that it was selling the food flavours
to independent bottling units and that establishes the marketability of the
product. The assessee had claimed that its product is custom made and the
formula is a trade secret and further it had availed CENVAT credit of
inputs for payment of duty on final product. As the facts had been
established, contend Mr. Adhyaru, the finished goods are sold on different
code numbers assigned by the assessee, hence a new identity is established.
Learned senior counsel would urge to construe a particular good has been
manufactured, the goods must be capable of being bought and sold in the
market, as has been held by this Court in Bhor Industries Ltd. (supra),
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (supra) and Servo Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.
CCE[24].
Union Of India vs Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. & Ors on 29 October, 2003
In that regard reliance has been
placed on Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd & others.
M/S.Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur on 4 March, 2014
[25],
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur[26], Delhi Cloth & General Mills (supra)
and Satnam Overseas Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi[27].