Jurisprudentiol- More Recent SC Judgements
Customs - Valuation - Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules of 1988 - consideration for the technical services cannot be added to the value of the equipment imported to set up the plant in India.
The Show Cause Notice in this case was issued in 1993; the issue was the addition in the value for assessment to Customs Duty charges paid by Essar Steel Ltd for supply of technical services required for setting up and commissioning a plant for the manufacture of Hot Rolled Steel Coils in India. Customs duty is chargeable on goods by reference to their value at a price at which such goods or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. This would mean that any amount that is referable to the imported goods post-importation has necessarily to be excluded. It is with this basic principle in mind that the rules were interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that only those costs and services that are actually paid or payable for imported goods pre-import are to be added for the purpose of determining the value of the imported goods.
Please see Commissioner of Customs vs ESSAR Steels Ltd -
Central Excise - Refund - Buyer can claim refund
- Section 11-B does provide for the purchaser making the claim for refund provided he is able to establish that he has not passed on the burden to another person. It, therefore, cannot be said that Section 11-B is a device to retain the illegally collected taxes by the State. This is equally true of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962
The assessee is claiming refund for the period from 25.09.1996 to 16.10.1996. In terms of Section 11B, the application for refund was to be made within six months. Limitation of six months would not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. Even filing of the appeal should be treated as protest. In this case even if appeal is treated as a form of protest that was much beyond six months period from the date of purchase. Supreme Court held that the application for refund was time barred.
Please see Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur -
Central Excise - manufacture - classification
- assessee is engaged in the packing combination of mixture of raw rice, dehydrated vegetables and spices in the name of 'Rice and Spice'. Rice Spice is a combination of Raw Rice, Dehydrated vegetables and certain spices and condiments mixed in a pre-determined proportion and that blended together in a mixer for uniformity and the blended mixer is heated, if required, to sterilize the product. The mixed product is then packed in pouches with Nitrogen flushing for a longer shelf life.
The Supreme Court held that mere addition in the value, after the original product has undergone certain process, would not bring it within the definition of 'manufacture' unless its original identity also under goes transformation and it becomes a distinctive and new product.
Please see Satnam Overseas Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi-
Central Excise - manufacture - intermediary product - Tribunal remanded the matter on certain aspects - all issues remanded:
-In this case, the first Show Cause Notice was issued in the year 1992 - 17 SCNs followed. The tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner on certain issues. Even this remand is under challenge in the Supreme Court. Now, after 12 years, the Supreme Court has remanded all the issues raised to the Commissioner.
Please see Shalimar Wire Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata -
Central Excise - SSI Exemption - computation of Previous year's clearance - value of clearances of others' brands not eligible for SSI exemption, not to be included:
- The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of certain articles from vulcanized rubber as bushes for use in the motor vehicles. The appellant is a Small Scale Industrial unit. The appellant has its own brand name "VIR" and has been manufacturing these products under the said brand name and supplying the same to various customers. In addition, the appellant was also having job orders from some automobile companies like Hindustan Motors, Kinetic Honda, etc. The goods which were supplied to these automobile companies used to be cleared by the appellant on payment of excise duty. However, in respect of manufacture of its own goods under the brand name "VIR", the appellant claimed SSI benefit in terms of Notification No. 1/93 which provided for exemption from payment of excise duty on fulfillment of certain conditions. While interpreting this notification, the Department included the value of goods supplied to the automobile companies under the brand name 'HM" "PAL", "KH", etc. and on that basis, came to the conclusion that the total value of goods cleared by the assessee in the previous financial year was much more than Rs.3 crores and so denied the exemption. The Supreme Court held, "Once we come to the conclusion that in respect of those goods where brand name of other party is used on manufactured goods and that other party is not a SSI unit, exemption is not available, it would lead to inevitable result that the value of such goods cannot be added as well, while considering the value of the goods cleared by the assessee in the previous year."
Please see Vir Rubber Products P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III-
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in