Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Nirlon Limited, Kunal Sagar And Ashok ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 1 October, 2004
cites
Mallur Siddeswara Spinning Mills (P) ... vs C.C.E., Coimbatore on 18 March, 2004
In regard to addition of profit to cost of production when value is arrived at under Rule 6(b) (ii) we observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malhar Siddeswara Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE Coimbatore held that profit is addable
M/S. Amco Batteries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Cce, Bangalore on 23 February, 2001
In the case of Amco Batteries Ltd. v. CCE Banglore [2003 (153) ELT 7 S.C.] the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the concept of suppression with an intent to evade duty where MODVAT credit is available to the unit. The Supreme Court observed thus "in the present case also, there is no material on record from which it could be inferred or established that duty of excise was not levied or paid by reason of any fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty. It was a bona fide belief on the part of the appellant that scrap and waste, which was recovered while manufacturing batteries was exempt from levy of excise duty. Further appellant was entitled to get benefit of modvat scheme, therefore, there was no justifiable reason for the appellant to suppress any fact". It is clear from the above passage that if an assessee acts under a bona fide belief that duty is not payable suppression with an intent to evade duty cannot be invoked and more so when the benefit of modvat scheme was available to him. Clearly the ratio laid down in this case does not apply to a situation where suppression Per se is evident and is established from the facts of a given case. The concept of revenue neutrality is not novel to a manufacturer where the goods are modvatable. Thus the Goregaon factory is aware that whatever duty is discharged while clearing the goods to Tarapur unit the latter will be in a position to take such duty as modvat credit. Despite that if an unit chooses to suppress certain facts and thereby short pays duty, the consequences of such action would befall him.
M/S. Jay Yuhshin Ltd. vs Cce, Delhi on 21 March, 2001
18. The larger bench of Tribunal in Jay Yuhsin Ltd. v. CCE New Delhi [2000 (119) ELT 718] held that it has to be shown that the revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the assessee himself and not by way of availability of credit to the buyer of the assessee's manufactured goods. In the present case there are two assesses albeit belonging to the same group. For the purposes of Central Excise law the Goregoan unit is different from the one at Tarapur. It is the Goregoan unit who pays the duty the credit of which is taken by Tarapur unit. When two units are involved, according to the Bench, the plea of revenue neutrality is not available. We are not aware as to what financial considerations the Goregoan unit had in mind when it chose to deliberately under state the value of the goods manufactured and cleared by it to the Tarapur unit nor are we expected to go into such calculations. Revenue neutrality is a concept known to both the units. The allegation of evasion does not get mitigated by the fact that one unit is entitled to take modvat credit of duty paid by the other. The Larger Bench in the above cited case has also held that once an assessee has chosen to pay duty he has to take all the consequences of payment of duty. In the case before us the assessee chose to pay duty in preference to availment of benefit of Notification No. 217/86 CE and if any short payment occurs he has to take the consequences of short levy/non- levy.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs C.C.E on 28 September, 1994
In the case of Tamilnadu Housuing Board v. CCE Madras [1994 (74) ELT 9] the Supreme Court held that extended period is invokable only when suppression, fraud etc. with an intent to evade payment of duty is established The Hon'ble Court also held that the initial burden to prove that both these ingredients exist is on the department. In the present case the assessee was aware that the goods cleared at the factory gate were different from the ones cleared to Tarapur unit. Yet the appellant chose to declare that they were one and the same and adopted the same price for both the goods. The evidence collected by the Department established that the persons in charge were aware of the difference. It is not the case of the appellant that they were under a bona fide belief that what they declared to the department was the correct position in law. The two tests laid down by the Supreme Court are satisfied in this case. We may also add that a part of the period i.e. February 2000 to June 2000 is covered under normal period of limitation.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S. Raymonds Ltd. & Sh. Premal ... vs Cce, Aurangabad on 28 March, 2001
12. In so far as addition of 10% of the cost of production of the yarn captively consumed, as profit we observe that the Commissioner has adopted this percentage as profit on the basis of the Director's reports in the balance sheets, which say that the Tyre Cord division has done exceedingly well during the relevant period. We observe that no separate balance sheet is prepared by the company for the unit at Goregaon. In a situation of this sort the Commissioner was right in adopting 10% profit for the tyre cord division of the company. He followed the Larger Bench decision in the case of Raymonds Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Aurangabad cited supra while rejecting the appellants plea that overall profit or loss of the company should be taken into consideration while determining the margin of profit if any. The issue is well covered in the above cited decision. The only way the appellants could have contested this addition (10%) is by demonstrating that the margin of profit is less than 10% and therefore such a percentage cannot be added to the cost. We find that the appellant at no stage demonstrated a figure less than 10% to rebut the department's contention. We therefore agree with the contention of the Commissioner the 10% profit should be added while computing the cost of production of the captively consumed yarn.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Raymond Ltd. And Premal Icchaporia vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 20 October, 2000
6. On the third issue of inclusion of profit element to the cost of production he held that under Rule 6(b) (ii) profits if any which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods should be added. He rejected the appellants' contention that since the company is making losses 10% notional profit can not be added following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Raymond Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (129) ELT 327 (Tri-LB)], He observed that the company did not have a separate balance sheet for Goregaon unit. He therefore went by the statements of the Director of the company published in the balance sheet for the year 1998-99, 99-2000 and 2001 where the company declared that the improvement in profit margin in so far as Tyre Cord was concerned was eroded. These statements indicated that the Tire Cord unit was making profit. The Commissioner also observed that 10% margin is a reasonable rate of return as per industry norms.
1