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

        1979 (11) 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 Excludes Local Levy from Excise Value, Rules in Petitioner's Favor The court set aside the impugned orders and demand notices, ruling that the 2% local levy charged in Greater Bombay was not to be included in 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 Excludes Local Levy from Excise Value, Rules in Petitioner's Favor

                          The court set aside the impugned orders and demand notices, ruling that the 2% local levy charged in Greater Bombay was not to be included in the assessable value for excise purposes. The court emphasized that the wholesale cash price should be determined at the factory gate, excluding additional charges like freight and octroi. The petitioner's argument that the levy was a non-manufacturing element was accepted, leading to the exclusion of the levy from the assessable value. The court found in favor of the petitioner, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Determination of assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
                          2. Inclusion of a 2% local levy in the assessable value.
                          3. Interpretation of "wholesale cash price" under Section 4(a).
                          4. Limitation aspect in issuing demand notices.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Determination of Assessable Value Under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
                          The primary issue was whether the 2% local levy charged by the petitioner should be included in the assessable value of tyres for excise duty purposes. The petitioner argued that the wholesale price should be based on sales made in other parts of India, which constituted 91% of their total sales, rather than the 9% sales in Greater Bombay. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 4(a) requires the wholesale cash price to be ascertained at the time of removal of the products from the factory, eliminating freight, octroi, and other charges involved in transportation, irrespective of the sales volume in different regions.

                          2. Inclusion of a 2% Local Levy in the Assessable Value:
                          The petitioner contended that the 2% local levy recovered from customers in Greater Bombay was a non-manufacturing element and should not be included in the assessable value. The respondents argued that the levy was a profit and should be included. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Voltas Ltd. and the Division Bench's decision in the Indian Tobacco Company case, which clarified that excise duty is levied only on manufacturing cost plus manufacturing profit, excluding post-manufacturing costs and profits. The court concluded that the 2% local levy was a non-manufacturing element and could not be included in the assessable value under Section 4(a).

                          3. Interpretation of "Wholesale Cash Price" Under Section 4(a):
                          The court examined the meaning of "wholesale cash price" in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in A.K. Roy and another v. Voltas Ltd. The ruling emphasized that excise duty is levied on manufacturing cost and profit, excluding post-manufacturing costs and selling profits. The court reiterated that the wholesale price should be determined at the factory gate, eliminating additional charges like freight and octroi. The court found that the 2% local levy did not form part of the manufacturing cost or profit and thus should not be included in the wholesale cash price.

                          4. Limitation Aspect in Issuing Demand Notices:
                          Although the petitioner raised the issue of limitation regarding the demand notices, the court found in favor of the petitioner on the merits of the case. Consequently, the limitation aspect became academic and was not addressed in detail.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court set aside the impugned order dated 28th May 1969, the four demand notices dated 29th May 1969, the appellate order dated 24th July 1974, and the demand notice dated 30th September 1974. The 2% local levy charged by the petitioner in Greater Bombay was deemed a non-manufacturing element and excluded from the assessable value for excise purposes. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
                          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