Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal grants appeal on octroi deduction, excludes from assessable value. Remand for reassessment.

        MERINO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-II

        MERINO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT-II - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 283 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:
        - Appeal against dismissal of claim for deduction of octroi paid in transportation of goods
        - Interpretation of Section 4A(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
        - Assessable value determination for excise duty liability

        Analysis:

        1. Appeal against dismissal of claim for deduction of octroi paid in transportation of goods:
        The appeal arose from an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appellant's appeal against the adjudicating authority's decision confirming demands and rejecting the claim for deduction of octroi paid in the transportation of goods. The authorities held that octroi payment does not relate to the sale of goods and thus cannot be deducted under Section 4A(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal found this reasoning unsustainable as the law clearly states that any tax or duty lawfully payable and paid by the manufacturer should not form part of the transaction value. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to finalize the assessable value after deducting the disallowed octroi amount.

        2. Interpretation of Section 4A(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
        The Tribunal analyzed the definition of 'transaction value' under Section 4A(3)(d) of the Act, which includes the price paid for goods and amounts payable by the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale. The definition explicitly excludes duty of excise, sales tax, and other taxes actually paid or payable on the goods from the transaction value. The Tribunal emphasized that any tax or duty lawfully paid by the manufacturer should not be considered while determining the assessable value for duty liability. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the claim for octroi paid by the appellants should have been allowed as a deduction in determining the assessable value.

        3. Assessable value determination for excise duty liability:
        The Tribunal clarified that the assessable value for determining duty liability should not include taxes or duties lawfully paid by the manufacturer, such as octroi in this case. The authorities' decision to disallow the deduction of octroi was deemed unsustainable and set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for finalizing the assessable value after deducting the octroi amount disallowed under the impugned order. The appeal was successful, and consequential relief was granted.

        In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the correct interpretation of the law regarding the exclusion of lawfully paid taxes and duties from the transaction value for determining assessable value. The Tribunal emphasized that octroi paid by the manufacturer should be allowed as a deduction and set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found