Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.34 seconds)
Standard Drum &Amp; Barrel Mfg. Co. vs Cce Mumbai - Ii on 28 June, 2018 cites

Velvette International Pharma ... vs C.C.E., Chennai-Ii on 28 August, 2001

6.4 The Kolkata Bench in the case of Orissa Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhuvaneswar (supra) have also relied on the International Auto case and held that the job worker (intermediate manufacturer) need not pay differential duty by taking value inclusive of cost of raw materials, as raw materials supplier would be entitled to credit or Intermediate goods could be returned without payment of duty under Rule 57F procedure. If the intermediary product is not liable for duty, the question of adding the value of scrap does not 31 E/357/2009,85606/2016 arise at all. In these circumstances, in our view, the value of scrap need not be included in the assessable value of the products manufactured by the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - K R Pandian - Full Document

(I) M/S. Aluminium Industries Limited ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 25 June, 2012

8. As regard the inclusion of profit element which is appearing in the balance sheet in the value of the drum for the purpose of charging excise duty, we find that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Ujagar Print the principle of valuation was categorically laid down, accordingly to which the method of valuation of job work goods is that value should be cost of raw material plus job work charges including the profit of job worker. We find that profit which is appearing in 26 E/357/2009,85606/2016 the balance sheet is arrived out of receipt of fabrication charges which already included profit which is appearing in the balance sheet. There is no case of the department that appellant have received some additional consideration over and above the job charges received from the principals HPCL and BPCL, therefore profit appearing in the balance sheet which is part of the fabrication charges cannot be again included in the assessable value of the drum, demand to this extent is also not sustainable. On this issue, this tribunal in the Ravi Steel Industries (supra) dealing with the same issue of notional profit held as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Jaipur on 24 February, 2005

16 E/357/2009,85606/2016 E. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellants submit that they have paid duty on clearance on scrap from their factory. It is submitted that the present case is revenue neutral. Credit of duty paid by the Appellants will be available to HPCL and BPCL. The Appellants place reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -- 2008 (232) ELT 687and P.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -- 2003 (159) ELT 1046 (T)wherein it was held that duty demand is not maintainable when the consequences of the demand are revenue neutral. Duty paid in excess on certain clearances needs to be adjusted against short duty paid on other clearances. F.1 The Order-in-Original dated 21.2.2014 has held that the Appellants have paid excess duty of Rs.12,80,876/- which is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In other words, the excess payment of duty would not be adjusted towards the short payment of duty. The Appellants submit that Rule 7 provides that the refund if arising out of finalisation order is subjected to unjust enrichment. This provision applies only in cases where excess payment of duty is adjusted with the short payment of duty and still there is excess payment of duty. The 17 E/357/2009,85606/2016 refund of such excess payment alone would be subjected to unjust enrichment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Gtc Industries Limited, J.P. Khetan, ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 14 December, 2001

16 E/357/2009,85606/2016 E. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellants submit that they have paid duty on clearance on scrap from their factory. It is submitted that the present case is revenue neutral. Credit of duty paid by the Appellants will be available to HPCL and BPCL. The Appellants place reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -- 2008 (232) ELT 687and P.T.C. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner -- 2003 (159) ELT 1046 (T)wherein it was held that duty demand is not maintainable when the consequences of the demand are revenue neutral. Duty paid in excess on certain clearances needs to be adjusted against short duty paid on other clearances. F.1 The Order-in-Original dated 21.2.2014 has held that the Appellants have paid excess duty of Rs.12,80,876/- which is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In other words, the excess payment of duty would not be adjusted towards the short payment of duty. The Appellants submit that Rule 7 provides that the refund if arising out of finalisation order is subjected to unjust enrichment. This provision applies only in cases where excess payment of duty is adjusted with the short payment of duty and still there is excess payment of duty. The 17 E/357/2009,85606/2016 refund of such excess payment alone would be subjected to unjust enrichment.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next