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

CCE & ST, Pondichery Versus M/s. Aurofood Ltd.

2017 (7) TMI 486 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Abatements on durable and returnable containers - Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed discussion as to how the original authority has granted abatement. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has explained that for the metal containers which were returned, the refund paid by them was ₹ 5.50 and ₹ 5, whereas the price of such containers was ₹ 8.03 and ₹ 6.88. The department contends that the respondents are eligible only on the amount that is refunded and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant Shri G.Derrick Sam, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per Bench The respondents have filed price list wherein claiming certain deductions from the assessable value in respect of certain post manufacturing expenses viz., cost of additional packing, selling profit, durable and returnable containers, trade discount, additional turnover tax etc. After several rounds of litigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-Appeal No. 46/84 (T) dated 31.12.1984, allowed abatements towards freight a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

irection of the Hon ble High Court, the Assistant Collector computed the differential duty and passed order as under: In respectful compliance with the direction rendered by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in writ petition No.442/82 dated 26.07.83 and in writ petition 5896/85 dated 07.12.87 and in conformity with the Collector (Appeals) order A. 46/84 (T) dated 31.12.84, I allow abatements towards freight, turnover tax, cost of durable and returnable metal tin containers and disallow the abatem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 771/2004 dated 09.09.2004 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order passed by the original authority as shown above and dismissed the appeal filed by the department. Being aggrieved, the department is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR, Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC, submitted that the original authority has allowed abatements on durable and returnable containers as well .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ounsel Shri G. Derrick Sam, appearing for the respondents explained that the respondents had refunded ₹ 5 for the metallic returnable containers, wherein the cost of the container was ₹ 8, which has been shown and declared in the price list by them; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has compared the price declared in the price list 7/79 with that of corresponding dealer s price list and found the price to be one and the same. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has sufficiently answe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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