Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        1978 (2) TMI 103 - HC - Central Excise

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Court dismisses appeal by Excise authorities, upholds judgment on excise duty calculation and time-barred demands. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Excise authorities, upholding the judgment that quashed the Notices of Demand and the impugned orders. The ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court dismisses appeal by Excise authorities, upholds judgment on excise duty calculation and time-barred demands.

                          The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Excise authorities, upholding the judgment that quashed the Notices of Demand and the impugned orders. The court emphasized that the excise duty should be based on the wholesale cash price, inclusive of trade discounts, and that the demands for additional duty were time-barred and invalid. The deductions for trade discount, onward freight allowance, and special rebate were found to be genuine and permissible under Section 4 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 500/-.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Determination of the basis for excise duty assessment.
                          2. Validity of the Notices of Demand for differential duty.
                          3. Permissibility of deductions for trade discount, onward freight allowance, and special rebate.
                          4. Nature of assessments and applicability of Rule 9-B.

                          Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Determination of the Basis for Excise Duty Assessment:
                          The primary contention was whether the excise duty should be based on the price charged by the Petitioners to their distributors, inclusive of trade discounts, or on the price charged by the distributors to wholesale purchasers. The court examined Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which defines the "wholesale cash price" for the purpose of duty determination. The court noted that the wholesale cash price is the price at which goods are sold or capable of being sold at the time of removal from the factory. The court found that the transactions between the Petitioners and their distributors were at arm's length and constituted the wholesale cash price. Therefore, the excise duty should be based on these transactions, inclusive of the trade discounts.

                          2. Validity of the Notices of Demand for Differential Duty:
                          The Petitioners argued that the Notices of Demand for the differential duty were time-barred and invalid as the final and complete assessments had already been made for the relevant period. The court accepted this contention, noting that the assessments were not provisional, and thus, the demands for additional duty were not justified. The court held that the demands were indeed time-barred and quashed the Notices of Demand.

                          3. Permissibility of Deductions for Trade Discount, Onward Freight Allowance, and Special Rebate:
                          The key issue was whether the 11% reduction (comprising 8% trade discount, 1.5% onward freight allowance, and 1.5% special rebate) was deductible for determining the value under Section 4 of the Act. The court examined the nature of these deductions and found that they were genuine trade discounts. The court emphasized that trade discounts are permissible deductions under the Explanation to Section 4, provided they are not extra-commercial benefits. The court concluded that the deductions were genuine and permissible, as they were part of the standard business practice and not influenced by any extra-commercial considerations.

                          4. Nature of Assessments and Applicability of Rule 9-B:
                          The Petitioners contended that the assessments for the relevant period were final and not provisional, thereby making Rule 9-B inapplicable. The court agreed with this contention, noting that the assessments were indeed final and complete. Consequently, the provisions of Rule 9-B, which pertain to provisional assessments, were not attracted in this case. The court thus upheld the Petitioners' argument that the demands for additional duty were invalid.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Excise authorities, upholding the judgment that quashed the Notices of Demand and the impugned orders. The court emphasized that the excise duty should be based on the wholesale cash price, inclusive of trade discounts, and that the demands for additional duty were time-barred and invalid. The deductions for trade discount, onward freight allowance, and special rebate were found to be genuine and permissible under Section 4 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 500/-.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found