//
archives

Excise

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Whether the metal scrap o waste generated whilst repairing of worn out machineries or parts of cement manufacturing plant amounts to manufacture, and thereby, is excisable to excise duty. ?=the metal scrap and waste arising out of the repair and maintenance work of the machinery used in manufacturing of cement, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as a subsidiary product to the cement which is the main product. The metal scrap and waste arise only when the assessee undertakes repairing and maintenance work of the capital goods and, therefore, do not arise regularly and continuously in the course of a manufacturing business of cement.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7453 OF 2008 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. ………….. Appellant versus Union of India ………..Respondent J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2008 of the High Court of … Continue reading

Excise duty =(i) At what stage does the beer manufactured is exigible to duty? (ii) Whether the procedure adopted by the appellants for ascertaining excess manufacturing wastage (excess deficiency) is proper? =The appeals by the state relate to imposition of duty and additional duty on excess wastage in the brewery. The appeals by the Breweries relate to imposition of duty and additional duty on excess bottling wastage. -The process of bottling begins with the transfer of bulk beer from the brewery for bottling. Sub-section (2) of section 28A refers to an allowance to an extent of 10% not only in regard to losses within the brewery but also to cover losses in bottling and storage. As noticed above, Rule 53 of the Brewery Rules and Rule 7(11) of the Bottling Rules when read conjointly show that the said rules are supplementary to each other and together implement section 28A of the Act. At all events, the validity of neither Rule 53 of Brewery Rules nor Rule 7(11) of Bottling Rules is under challenge. Be that as it may.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4708-4709 OF 2002 State of U.P. & Ors. … Appellants Vs. M/s Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents With Civil Appeal No.4710 of 2002 Civil Appeal No.4711 of 2002 Civil Appeal No.4712 of 2002 Civil Appeal No.4713 of 2002 J … Continue reading

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Section 5-A(1). Excise duty-Notification dated 1.3.1989-Exemption to computer software falling under heading 85.24. Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Schedule-Chapter 84 Headings 84.71 and 85.24-Note 5(a) and 6. Excise duty-Valuation-Computer-Software such as discs, floppies, CD-ROMs sold along with computers-Value of such software held not in-cludible in assessable value of computers. The question in these appeals is whether the value of software, such as discs, floppies, CD ROMs and the like (not the intellectual property recorded or stored thereon), also called software, that is sold along with the computer, was to be included in the assessable value of computers for the purposes of excise duty. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal proceeded upon the basis that the appellant-assessee sold computer systems and that a computer system was incomplete without systems software inasmuch as mere hardware without systems software did not make the system workable. Accordingly it held that the exdse liability of the computer system had to be determined with reference to the computer system itself and for assessment of the computer system it was immaterial whether the software was a bought out item. In the assessment of the computer system an individual part lost its independent identity and became a part of the computer system. Against the judgments and orders of the Tribunal appeals were filed before this Court. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the impugned judgments and orders, this Court HELD : 1. In the first place, the Tribunal confused a computer system with a computer; what was being charged to excise duty was the computer. Secondly, that a computer and its software are distinct and separate is clear, both as a matter of commercial parlance as also upon the material on record. A computer may not be capable of effective functioning unless loaded with software such as discs, floppies and C.D. ROMs, but that is not to say that these are part of the computer or to hold that, if they are sold along with the computer, their value must form part of the assessable value of the computer for the purposes of excise duty. Thus, the value of software, if sold along with the computer, cannot be included in the assessable value of the computer for the purposes of excise duty. [272-A-B] Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Sunray Computers Pvt. Ltd., (1988) 33 ELT 787, overruled. State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd., [1977] 1 SCR 837 and State of Mysore v. Kores (India) Ltd., (1970) 26 S.T.C. 87 (Mys.), referred to. Robert P. Biglow, Computer Contracts: Negotiating and Drafting Guide, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 491 of 1989 Etc.

PETITIONER: M/S PSI DATA SYSTEMS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/1996 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA, S.B. SEN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH (C.A. No.79/89 and C.A. No.6042/94) J U D G M E N T BHARUCHA. J.: These appeals against the judgments and orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate … Continue reading

Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The object of providing concessional rate of duty, on the kerosene used for illuminating oil burning lamps, was to provide some relief to those economically backward sections of society who use kerosene for illumination and other domestic purposes and, therefore, the benefit of concessional rate of duty was available only on the kerosene cleared by the assessee to the Public Distribution System. [Para 13] [366-C] 2. In the light of the object and context of the notifications, it becomes abundantly clear that the word “ordinarily” used in the Notifications implies that the kerosene must be ordinarily used for illumination purposes, and it would be immaterial if the kerosene is also used for other domestic purposes. [Para 16] [367-B] Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. J.D. Orgochem Ltd. (2008) 16 SCC 576; Viswa and Co. vs. The State of Gujarat (1966) 17 S.T.C. 581 – referred to. 3. From the perusal of the two Notifications, it is plain that the benefit of concessional rate of duty extends only to that variety of kerosene that: (i) has a smoke point of 18mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these two conditions are conjunctive and, therefore, the twin conditions need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty. In the instant case, the fact that the assessee cleared kerosene manufactured by it to industrial consumers would entail that the assessee cannot claim the benefit of Notifications No. 5/98-CE and 5/99-CE. [Para 17] [367-C-D] Union of India and Anr. vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 290; State of A.P. vs. V. Sarma Rao and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 159 – relied on. Union of India and Ors. vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721 – referred to. Case Law Reference: (2008) 16 SCC 576 Referred to Para 11 (1966) 17 S.T.C. 581 Referred to. Para 11 (2010) 4 SCC 290 Relied on. Para 14 (1996) 6 SCC 721 Referred to. Para 14 (2007) 2 SCC 159 Relied on. Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7041-7043 of 2002. From the Judgment & Order dated 21.01.2002 of the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/682-684/2001-C. Alok Yadav, M.P. Devanath for the Appellant. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ron Bastian, Anil Katiyar for the Respondent.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7041-7043 OF 2002 M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION — APPELLANT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL — RESPONDENT EXCISE, VADODARA JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. These civil appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act) are directed against … Continue reading

These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench [for short “CEGAT”] on 02.08.2002 whereby the Tribunal had allowed the appeals filed by the respondents holding that the respondents were not guilty of clandestine removal of excisable goods and also that the goods of

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4500-4502 OF 2003 Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai …. Appellant Versus M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …. Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,717 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com