SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(Cal) 86

ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJEE, SINHA
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Appellant
Versus
SHANKARLAL AGARWALLA AND DINANATH AGARWALLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.K.SEN, G.P.KAR, GOURI MITRA, Pyne

SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case arc shortly as follows: The respondents carry on business in co-partnership as manufacturers of rubber and canvas goods including shoes, under the name and style of Olympia Rubber Works, at No. 10. Pay-mental Garden Lane in Calcutta. Under the Finance Act 1954 foot-wear is dutiable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") at the rate of 10% ad valorem. How the valuation is to be determined for the purpose of calculating duty appears from section 4 of the said Act, the relevant part whereof is set out below:" (4) Determination of value for the purpose of duty (a) Where under this Act any article is chargeable with duty at a rate dependent on the value of the article such value shall be deemed to be the wholesale cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or any other premises of manufacture or production for delivery at the place of manufacture or production or if a wholesale market does not exist for such article at such place at the nearest place where such ma


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top