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

1997 Supreme(All) 694

S.L.SARAF
EUREKA FORBES LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
SUDHIR CHANDRA

S. L. SARAF, J.


( 1 ) THE petitioner is manufacturer of vacuum cleaners. The case of the petitioner is that it manufactures certain items as part of the vacuum cleaners whereas the other parts and accessories known as optional accessories are purchased from the market and so such accessories are never manufactured within the factory premises of the petitioner nor they are cleared from the factory premises as such they are not excisable goods nor the value of such products can be added for assessing the value of the product for the purposes of levying the excise duty. According to the petitioner this position has been upheld by the order of the Central excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. E/676/94-A and e/1647/94-A, dated 5-2-1996 1996 (83) E. L. T. 334 (Tribunal ). According to the petitioner the tribunal had come to a finding of fact that extra numbers of bags in excess of one supplied along with the machine duly fitted will not be its component parts and they do not form part of the assessable value. The said order was passed for the period August, 1992 to January, 1993.

( 2 ) MR. Sudhir Chandra appearing for the petitioner submits that for the p












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