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 rectifies oversight, grants cum-duty benefit after Supreme Court ruling on Section 4(4)(d)(ii) entitlement

        M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram

        M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner of CGST, Gurugram - TMI

        1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

        The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

        • Whether the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellants is maintainable due to the oversight in not extending the cum-duty benefit in the final order.
        • Whether the appellants are entitled to the cum-duty benefit under the relevant legal framework and precedents.
        • Whether the pool lifting charges should be included in the assessable value and if this inclusion precludes the extension of cum-duty benefit.

        2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

        Issue 1: Maintainability of the Rectification of Mistake Application

        • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The rectification of mistake application is governed by procedural rules that allow correction of errors apparent on the face of the record.
        • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court recognized that the omission to consider the cum-duty benefit was an oversight, constituting a mistake apparent on the record.
        • Key evidence and findings: The court noted the absence of analysis on the cum-duty benefit request in the final order.
        • Application of law to facts: The oversight was deemed a correctable error, allowing the application for rectification.
        • Treatment of competing arguments: The Department opposed the application, arguing that the pool lifting charges were rightly included in the assessable value, thus precluding cum-duty benefit. However, the court focused on the procedural aspect of the oversight.
        • Conclusions: The application for rectification of mistake was accepted, and the oversight was corrected.

        Issue 2: Entitlement to Cum-Duty Benefit

        • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to several precedents, including decisions in Zircon Private Limited, Sunil Trading Co., and Maruti Udyog Limited, which support the entitlement to cum-duty benefit.
        • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that the sale price should be regarded as inclusive of excise duty, aligning with the principle that the price charged includes all taxes unless separately itemized.
        • Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted past decisions where cum-duty benefit was recognized, and the Department had not contested these findings.
        • Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that the sale price is inclusive of duty, thereby entitling the appellants to cum-duty benefit.
        • Treatment of competing arguments: The Department cited cases like Bharati Tele-ventures Ltd. to argue against cum-duty benefit, but the court found these inapplicable due to differing contexts.
        • Conclusions: The appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit, and the final order was amended to reflect this entitlement.

        Issue 3: Inclusion of Pool Lifting Charges in Assessable Value

        • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court examined precedents including Amrit Agro Industries Ltd., which discuss the components of assessable value.
        • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the Department's position that pool lifting charges are part of the transaction value but focused on the broader principle of cum-duty entitlement.
        • Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the appellants did not separately charge duty on pool lifting charges, supporting the cum-duty argument.
        • Application of law to facts: Despite inclusion in assessable value, the court found that the overall price was still inclusive of duty.
        • Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's reliance on precedents was found insufficient to negate the established principle of cum-duty inclusion.
        • Conclusions: The inclusion of pool lifting charges did not preclude cum-duty benefit.

        3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

        • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The sale price realised by the respondent has to be regarded as the entire price inclusive of excise duty because it is the respondent who has, by necessary implication, taken on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods sold."
        • Core principles established: The principle that the sale price is inclusive of excise duty unless separately itemized was reinforced, confirming entitlement to cum-duty benefit.
        • Final determinations on each issue: The rectification of mistake application was granted, the appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit, and the final order was amended to reflect these conclusions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found