Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commr. of Central Excise-I, Pune Versus M/s Hindustan National Glass & Ind. Ltd. &Ors.

2015 (12) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT

Valuation - sale of soft drink through unit II - unit II is doing printing on un-printed bottles - Determination of assessable value under Rule 6(b)(ii) - Held that:- Since the matter is back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, it may not be necessary to interfere with the order of the Tribunal insofar as it directs remand of the matter. However, the grievance of the Department in the present appeal is as it is argued by Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for the appellant/Depa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

997. At the same time, we also clarify that it would be open to the assessee to argue before the Commissioner that it was not permissible for the Department to invoke the larger period of limitation as there was no suppression or misstatement on the part of the assessee. If such a plea is raised, it would be for the Commissioner to take the view thereon with reference to the record and decide the same in accordance with law. - Appeal disposed of. - Civil Appeal No(s). 5996-5998/2007 - Dated:- 29 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wad, Pune is engaged in printing the logos of different soft drink manufactures. It is not in dispute that while clearing these bottles, the assessee was paying excise duty on the assessable value determined on the basis of the cost of production and profit of the unprinted glass bottles under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. The assessee received orders of printed bottles from the soft drink manufacturers and adopted a Spilt Billing System . In the said system, Unit I was generating the bi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

value adopted by the Unit I for paying duty continued to be the same and as a result, Unit I was showing heavy loss whereas Unit II was showing heavy profits. The appellant/Department s case is that the spilt billing system adopted by the assessee in such a way that the value of unprinted bottles was reduced artificially although, there was no sale of goods from Unit I to Unit II. There was lot of difference between the sale price of unprinted bottles and sale price of printed bottles even afte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ary, 1995 to October, 1997 on the basis of evidence collected during the cost audit conducted in respect of the assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 14A of the Central Excise Act and investigation of the assessable value of the goods in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 1975. The said show cause notice was confirmed by the Assessing Officer vide its Order-in-Original dated 10.12.1998. The Assessing Officer held that the methods adopted by the assesseee in determining the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rked backward from the sale price of the bottles of the Unit II. From the sale price of Unit II, it has subtracted the cost of printing of bottles to arrive at the actual assessable value of the unprinted bottles. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal vide its final order dated 13.04.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee and remitted the case back to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion to their price list dated 0.12.1996 can be looked into afresh and appropriate penal action can be considered. d) the appellant is free to adduce any evidence which they would like to rely upon before the Commissioner and entitled to raised all issues before him. e) The Commissioner shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing before final order is passed. Since the matter is back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, it may not be necessary to interfere with the order of the Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version