Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA Versus BARON INTERNATIONAL LTD.

2015 (7) TMI 1033 - SUPREME COURT

Job Work - Dummy unit - revenue allege that JRE was not an independent job unit but was a dummy of the Respondent created and nurtured with the single motive that cost of manufacture be reduced by bifurcation and the cost of sale promotion, advertisements, after sales services etc. were incurred by the respondent company. - Held that:- Reading of the show cause notices that main reason for taking action against the respondent assessee was that JRE was dummy of BIL. However, after going through t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to BIL at the same rates at which within the other companies, namely, Uptron and Dixon Utilities were supplying. Therefore, no benefit was even secured by the BIL on the basis of the alleged relationship. On this aspect the case is squarely covered in favour of the respondent by the judgment of this very Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. Detergents India Ltd. & Anr. in [2015 (4) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT]. - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal Nos. 9571-95 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ctured in India on job work basis from manufacturers including M/s. JR Electronics.(JRE). 2. An investigation was carried out wherein it was claimed before the IO that there existed a provision for payment of 18% interest on all the loans and advances made to JRE by BIL. The investigating officer found that for the financial year 1994-95, the accrual of such interest had not been shown in the books of Respondent. 3. On the basis of these facts, 4 SCN s dated 12-6-97, 29-7-97, 31-7-97 & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ince at the time when the project report was prepared by the respondents, the CTV s attracted specific rate of duty. The price at which JRE sold goods were comparable to the prices charged by other manufacturers similarly placed for identical goods i.e. Uptron etc. 5. Ld. Authority confirmed the demand made in order dated 12-6-1997 and rejected the demand made in the remaining SCN s dated 29-7-97, 31-7-97 & 8-10-97. Ld. Authority ordered recovery of differential duty of ₹ 5,48,92, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version