Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.37 seconds)The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
The Copyright Act, 1957
Union Of India & Ors vs Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 2 May, 1989
Electrical Industries v. U.O.I. - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.); U.O.I. v. Playworld Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 368 (S.C.)
M/S. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 1994
and R.O. Industries v. U.O.I. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.), relied upon by the appellants. However, we find that all these decisions dealt with the situation where the departments proposed to include the value of the brand name of the principle manufacturer in the assessable value of the job-worker's final product. It was in these condition that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the brand name holder is the owner of the same and the price received by him from his customers or market, on account of goodwill of the brand name, cannot be made a part of the assessable value of the job-work manufactured goods. We arts afraid that the ratio of the above decisions is not applicable to the facts of the instant case on account of the same being altogether different. The issue in the present case is as to whether the landed cost of the DAT which would also include royalty, is required to be added in the assessable value of the CD's or not.
Mutal Industries Ltd. vs Cce on 24 January, 2000
10. At this stage, we take note of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. Mumbai -2000 (117) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention not to include the cost of the moulds supplied free by the customers and used in the manufacture of finished goods by observing that in the absence of these moulds assessees could not have manufactured moulded components as required by the customers. These moulds are essential and without their help finished product could not have come into existence. The fact that the same belong to the customer and were given back to them after use was held to be of no consequence. The Tribunal also observed that if the mould would have been procured by the customer, the value of finished product would have been far greater than the amount fixed between the appellants and customers. Similar is the situation in the present case. It is not possible for the appellants to manufacture the CDs without formulated DAT. If the DAT, is not provided by the customer and the appellants is required to himself procure the same, he would have paid royalty to the music owners in which case the same would have become part of the assessable value of the final CD, as also conceded by the learned Advocate. The assessable value of the same product cannot be different depending upon two different situations i.e. as to who is the manufacturer.
Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Cce Chandigarh on 18 January, 2001
12. Reference may also be made here to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. C.C.E. Chandigarh 2003 (158) E.L.T. 552 (SC) wherein the royalty amount collected by M/s Pepsi from their bottlers for use of trade mark of soft drink beverages manufactured out of the concentrates sold by M/s Pepsi was hold to be includible in the assessable value of concentrate. In para 11 their lordship observed that - "The fact that the royalty is charged for permitting the use of the trademark, but not as part of price for specific units of concentrate sold does not detract from the fact that the overall consideration for the sale of concentrate is not merely its price stated in the invoice. It is something more that, namely, royalty to be received periodically". Though the fact of the instant case are not at all four comers with the fact of the instant case but support can be drawn from the ratio of the same.
Burn Standard Company Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India And Others on 16 July, 1991
In the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I.- 1992 (60) E.L.T. 671 as also in the case of Texmeco Ltd. v. C.C.E. Calcutta -1995 (77) E.L.T. 501 (S.C.), it was held that the value of the free supply items by the customer is includable in assessable value of the final product. In fact in the case of Texmeco Ltd. it was observed that the fact that the ownership of the free supply items was with the customers was held to be extraneous for levy of excise duty and for determining the value of the final product.
Johnson And Johnson Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 9 September, 2003
16. The Tribunal in the case of Johnson and Johnson v. C.C.E. Mumbai - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 409 (T) observed that the value of any equipment or component specifically facilitating the production of an article is to be included in computing the assessable value of the final product. Relying upon the earlier judgment holding that the value of the dies or printing plots could be apportioned over resultant product, the Tribunal laid down that the value of the art work/printing screen frame was correctly includable in the assessable value of the labels printed by the assessee.
Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The main arena of the dispute in the present appeal is as regards the inclusion of royalty paid by the copyright holder to the music companies or viewed from other angle, the cost of the DAT, even where the music has been composed, by the customers themselves. It is an admitted fact that without the existence of DAT, manufacture of CDs was not possible. As such, DAT acquired the characteristics of raw material. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.), assessable value in such situation would be the value of the raw material supplied by the customers and the job work charges, which may include the profit margin of the job worker and the profit of the manufacturer also. As such, it is no longer a grey area for holding the proposition that the cost of the raw material supplied by the principal manufacturer is to be added in the assessable value of the final product being manufactured on job work basis.