Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Union Of India And Anr vs Deoki Nandan Aggarwal on 4 September, 1991
[See : Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests, Palghat and Anr. (AIR 1990 SC 1747), Union of India and Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Anr. [1997 (6) SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Ors. (JT 2002 (3) SC 21)]. ????????????????????
The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... vs M/S. Price Waterhouse & Anr on 11 July, 1997
[See : Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests, Palghat and Anr. (AIR 1990 SC 1747), Union of India and Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Anr. [1997 (6) SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Ors. (JT 2002 (3) SC 21)]. ????????????????????
M/S. Sesa Goa Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa on 29 September, 2010
3. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that the Appellant had not received any amount, in addition to the FOB price, towards the export duty discharged by them. Hence, the export duty that had not been recovered from the customers separately, in addition to the FOB price, and it being a part of the total realization i.e.FOB price, the same requires to be deducted from the FOB price in arriving at the assessable value. Precisely, his contention is that the FOB price be considered as the cum-duty price, a practice, according to him, had been followed since inception of the Customs Act,1962. The second line of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocated is that Customs Duty being an indirect tax, and the fundamental principle of an indirect tax is to pass on the burden of duty to the ultimate buyer/consumer of the goods; hence, the export duty if not recovered from the buyer, then, the FOB price be considered as cum-duty price and not transaction value. It is his contention that Indirect Taxes such as excise duty, customs duty, sales tax, octroi etc. are the taxes on commodity and the burden of these taxes is connected with the commodity and is meant to be ultimately borne by the consumers, who pay these duties/taxes. It is the commodity which bears the incidence of tax and carries with it the burden of tax. It is his submission that all these aspects are not considered by the Tribunal, while deciding the case on similar issue, reported as Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Goa, 2012(277)ELT 105(Tri.-Mum.).
The Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd vs The State Of Bihar on 19 February, 1958
In our view, the principle laid down in the aforesaid case and followed in other cases, answers the argument advanced by the ld. CA for the Appellant. On this count also, we do not find substance in the plea of the Appellant that FOB price be treated as cum-duty price and not the transaction value, as prescribed under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel And Co vs The Union Of India And Anther on 11 December, 1961
22.?It might further be pointed out that the submission of the learned Counsel that a tax which according to economic theory is an indirect tax or a tax on goods becomes a direct and a personal tax and a tax of a different nature or category if imposed retrospectively, because it was then incapable of being passed on, does not correctly represent the law as laid down by this Court. In common with duties of customs and excise, a tax on the sale of goods is another instance of a typical indirect tax. Indeed Lord Thankerton pointed out in 1934 AC 45:
Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd vs Custodian Of Vested Forests Palghat And ... on 6 April, 1990
[See : Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Custodian of Vested Forests, Palghat and Anr. (AIR 1990 SC 1747), Union of India and Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (AIR 1992 SC 96), Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Anr. [1997 (6) SCC 312] and Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Ors. (JT 2002 (3) SC 21)]. ????????????????????
1