Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 13 November, 2002
Relying on the first proviso to Section 4(1)(a),
which speaks about sale of goods, two classes of
buyers and the price at which the goods are sold to
each buyer should be taken as the normal price of such
goods in relation to each such class of buyers, the
appellants contend that the price at which the batteries
are sold to "MOD" shall be taken as the 'normal price'
of the batteries. Appellants also rely on rule 5 of the
Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.
The appellants contend that even if it is assumed
that price is not the sole consideration in the
transaction with MOD, the money value of the silver
flowing from MOD to the appellant, i.e., Rs. 2500/- per
kg. should be taken into account while determining the
assessable value. Appellants contend that the
comparable price taken by the silver in determining the
value of silver is not correct. Comparable value under
Rule 6(b)(ii) could be taken into account when the
value of the excisable goods cannot be ascertained
under Rule 4 or Rule 5. Reliance is placed on Ashok
Leyland Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise,
Madras, 2002 (146)ELT 503 (SC), in which it was
held that sale of goods to different classes of buyers
does not make normal price unascertainable as to
attract Section 4(1)(b). It is contended that the normal
price of battery is the price at which it is sold to MOD
and accordingly the value of silver is to be ascertained.
Respondents contend that normal price should be
ascertained by reference to the transaction. Since the
transaction with MOD is a special arrangement, the
contract price cannot be taken into account as such
transaction is not done in the ordinary course of
business. Therefore, the market value of the silver
should be taken into account. It is contended that in
order to claim the benefit of the proviso, the appellant
should show "normal practice" of whole sale trade.
Since the supply of old life expired batteries to retrieve
the silver forms a special arrangement it will not
constitute a "normal practice". It is contended that
even if some raw material is supplied free of cost for
the purpose of excise duty, the market value should be
taken into account.
Union Carbide India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta on 25 September, 2003
This view, we have set out above finds support
from decisions in Ashok Layland Vs. CCE Madras,
2002 (146) ELT 503; Union Carbide (India) Vs.
CCE Calcutta, 2003 (158) ELT 15, Burn_ Standard
Company Ltd. Vs. UOI, 1992 (60) ELT 671; CCE
Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) ELT 353.
The assessable value of the silver should be taken
at Rs. 2500/- per kg. which is the rate at which MOD
used to get the silver from the mint. The price charged
by the appellants was in terms of the contract entered
into by them with MOD. As per the terms of the
contract, MOD was to supply the silver to manufacture
the batteries. Since the stock of silver in the mint
depleted, MOD supplied the old life expired batteries to
retrieve the silver and to use the recovered silver in the
manufacture of new batteries. As per terms of the
contract, the appellants were to give a rebate to the
MOD in the price to be charged per battery and this
was the reason for the difference in prices between the
batteries supplied to MOD and HAL.
Burn Standard Company Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India And Others on 16 July, 1991
This view, we have set out above finds support
from decisions in Ashok Layland Vs. CCE Madras,
2002 (146) ELT 503; Union Carbide (India) Vs.
CCE Calcutta, 2003 (158) ELT 15, Burn_ Standard
Company Ltd. Vs. UOI, 1992 (60) ELT 671; CCE
Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) ELT 353.
The assessable value of the silver should be taken
at Rs. 2500/- per kg. which is the rate at which MOD
used to get the silver from the mint. The price charged
by the appellants was in terms of the contract entered
into by them with MOD. As per the terms of the
contract, MOD was to supply the silver to manufacture
the batteries. Since the stock of silver in the mint
depleted, MOD supplied the old life expired batteries to
retrieve the silver and to use the recovered silver in the
manufacture of new batteries. As per terms of the
contract, the appellants were to give a rebate to the
MOD in the price to be charged per battery and this
was the reason for the difference in prices between the
batteries supplied to MOD and HAL.
Ashok Layland vs Cce on 11 September, 2002
This view, we have set out above finds support
from decisions in Ashok Layland Vs. CCE Madras,
2002 (146) ELT 503; Union Carbide (India) Vs.
CCE Calcutta, 2003 (158) ELT 15, Burn_ Standard
Company Ltd. Vs. UOI, 1992 (60) ELT 671; CCE
Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) ELT 353.
The assessable value of the silver should be taken
at Rs. 2500/- per kg. which is the rate at which MOD
used to get the silver from the mint. The price charged
by the appellants was in terms of the contract entered
into by them with MOD. As per the terms of the
contract, MOD was to supply the silver to manufacture
the batteries. Since the stock of silver in the mint
depleted, MOD supplied the old life expired batteries to
retrieve the silver and to use the recovered silver in the
manufacture of new batteries. As per terms of the
contract, the appellants were to give a rebate to the
MOD in the price to be charged per battery and this
was the reason for the difference in prices between the
batteries supplied to MOD and HAL.
1