Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)
M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... on 22 June, 2015 cites

M/S. Areva T & D India Ltd vs Cce, Ltu, Chennai on 29 July, 2009

4. The Tribunal in the case of Areva T&D India Ltd (supra) held that freight and insurance charges do not form part of the assessable value for the purpose of payment of 8% amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of the said Rules, 2004. The Rule was amended on 01.04.2008. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate submits that the present case relates to prior to 01.04.2008.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise vs M/S. Koya & Co. Construction Pvt. Ltd. on 4 September, 2014

2.?The case of the department against the assessees is that during the period of dispute namely Feb06 to June06, Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, would require that a manufacturer of both dutiable and exempted goods not maintaining separate accounts shall pay an amount equal to 10% of value of the exempted final products, rejecting the contention of the assessees based upon the Tribunals order cited supra, on the ground that the rule was amended only on 1-4-08, providing the manufacturer to pay an amount equal to ten percent of the total price, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, paid on such goods, of the exempted final products charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory. However, we find that the decision in CCE, Hyderabad v. Koya & Co. Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was rendered prior to the amendment of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004, wherein the Tribunal uphold the Commissioners order holding that (i) cost of transportation, (ii) laying, (iii) jointing, (iv) testing and (v) commissioning could not be considered to be elements of the price of goods at the factory gate and rejecting the departments contention that the assessee should be subjected to 8% amount on price attributable to the above elements. Following the ratio of the decision cited supra, we set aside the impugned order, by holding that the elements of freight and insurance charges do not form part of the assessable value for the purpose of payment of 8% amount in terms of Rule 6(3), and allow the appeal.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1