Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Cadbury India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 September, 1992 cites

Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983

7. In view of the above discussion, we hold that turnover tax if paid in accordance with the relevant statute would be deductible from the assessable value in terms of Section 4, even if it is paid periodically to the concerned taxing authority. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to readjudicate the case in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. (supra) and the decisions of the Tribunal which have been referred to in this order. We further order that while readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 507 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Associated Pigments Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 November, 1988

"4. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that turnover tax is allowable as a deduction from the assessable value. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction to readjudicate the same in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Associated Pigments Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 186 following the Supreme Court decision. We further order that while readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe principles of natural justice and shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mysore Acetate And Chemicals Co. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 17 February, 1984

6. We find that in the case of Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 441 the Tribunal had once again held turnover, tax as an allowable deduction from the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Paras 3 and 4 of the said decision being relevant are reproduced below :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Assistant Collector Ofcentral Excise & ... vs Madras Rubber Factory Ltd on 20 December, 1986

1. The appellants have filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 42/91, dated 31-1-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore and simultaneously they have filed an application seeking stay of the recovery of an amount of differential duty amounting to Rs. 33,07,742/- demanded in terms of the order appealed against. Appearing on behalf of the appellants the learned advocate Shri R.G. Seth stated that the basic issue in the impugned order pertains to the abatement of turnover tax while determining the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He added that the appellants' claim for abatement of turnover tax was rejected by the lower authority not withstanding the fact that the law on the subject was well settled in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He submitted that as far as abatement of turnover tax is concerned even after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 had been followed by the Tribunal in the cases of Mysore Acetate & Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 (59) E.L.T. 441 and Hindustan Gas Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 (59) E.L.T. 306. The learned counsel argued that the Collector (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that Turnover Tax imposed under Karnataka Sales Tax or Bombay Sales Tax Act is non-recoverable in nature and therefore, it is not permissible for an assessee to recover any amount towards the Turnover Tax from his dealer/customer, nevertheless the amount paid by him being an expense it would be permissible for him to claim it as a deduction under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. He added that the argument of the Collector (Appeals) that Turnover Tax could be allowed as abatement only if it formed a part of the wholesale price was totally erroneous and had arisen on account of incorrect interpretation of the provision of Section 6(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. On these grounds he pleaded for unconditional stay of the recovery of the entire amount demanded. He also pleaded that the appeal may also be simultaneously disposed of in terms of the Tribunal's order cited by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 62 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Hindustan Gas And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 October, 1991

1. The appellants have filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 42/91, dated 31-1-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore and simultaneously they have filed an application seeking stay of the recovery of an amount of differential duty amounting to Rs. 33,07,742/- demanded in terms of the order appealed against. Appearing on behalf of the appellants the learned advocate Shri R.G. Seth stated that the basic issue in the impugned order pertains to the abatement of turnover tax while determining the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He added that the appellants' claim for abatement of turnover tax was rejected by the lower authority not withstanding the fact that the law on the subject was well settled in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He submitted that as far as abatement of turnover tax is concerned even after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 had been followed by the Tribunal in the cases of Mysore Acetate & Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 (59) E.L.T. 441 and Hindustan Gas Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 (59) E.L.T. 306. The learned counsel argued that the Collector (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that Turnover Tax imposed under Karnataka Sales Tax or Bombay Sales Tax Act is non-recoverable in nature and therefore, it is not permissible for an assessee to recover any amount towards the Turnover Tax from his dealer/customer, nevertheless the amount paid by him being an expense it would be permissible for him to claim it as a deduction under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. He added that the argument of the Collector (Appeals) that Turnover Tax could be allowed as abatement only if it formed a part of the wholesale price was totally erroneous and had arisen on account of incorrect interpretation of the provision of Section 6(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. On these grounds he pleaded for unconditional stay of the recovery of the entire amount demanded. He also pleaded that the appeal may also be simultaneously disposed of in terms of the Tribunal's order cited by him.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1