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

M.GOURI SHANKAR MURTHY, D.C.MANDAL, P.C.JAIN
Hind Lamp Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S. Watal, R.K. Ratal,V.M. Doiphode

ORDER

P.C. Jain, Member (T)

1. Brief facts of the case in so far material are as follows :-

The appellant had been submitting price lists of various goods manufactured by it under Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) from time to time during the period 15.3.73 to 30.9.75. These price lists had not included, as per declaration on the reverse of these price lists, the cost of secondary special packing and delivery charges recovered by the appellant company from its customers. On submission of the price lists the appellant company had been clearing the goods on payment of duty on the basis of its declared assessable value i.e. without including the cost of special secondary packing and delivery charges declared by it on the reverse of the price lists. The appellant company had also been submitting R.T. 12s during this period.

Neither the price lists were approved by the Department nor were any assessments made on R.T. 12 by the proper officer till a show cause notice was issued on 3rd July, 1976 asking the appellant company as to why the charges recovered by it from its customers towards packing and delivery be not included in the value of the foo

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