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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Appeal allowed for re-evaluation of deductions in light of Supreme Court and High Court principles.</h1> The appeal was allowed by remand, directing the Assistant Collector to re-evaluate the deductions for freight, taxes, and discounts as per the principles ... Valuation - Excludible items Issues Involved:1. Abatement of post-manufacturing expenses (PME) from the price lists.2. Rejection of claimed deductions by the Assistant Collector.3. Remand by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for de novo adjudication.4. Application of the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.5. Methodology for calculating deductions (freight, taxes, discounts).Detailed Analysis:1. Abatement of Post-Manufacturing Expenses (PME):The primary issue revolves around whether post-manufacturing expenses should be deducted from the assessable value of goods. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the abatement of PME from the price lists filed by the company, stating that these expenses should be included in the assessable value for tax purposes. However, the Assistant Collector allowed the cash discount to be deducted since it was ascertainable from the price lists.2. Rejection of Claimed Deductions:The Assistant Collector's order was challenged, and the Appellate Collector set aside the rejection of PME abatement. The department then sought a review, leading to a show cause notice proposing to restore the Assistant Collector's order. The company took the issue to the Calcutta High Court, which restrained the respondents from enforcing the demands and ordered provisional assessments based on the company's valuation, subject to furnishing a bond as required by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Remand by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals):The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter for de novo adjudication, noting that the Assistant Collector had not accepted the average figures for deductions claimed by the appellants. The Collector (Appeals) suggested that the abatement claims should be calculated on a product-wise and sale-unit basis, rather than an average basis, and noted that the Assistant Collector's rejection of the claims was harsh and irregular.4. Application of Supreme Court Judgment in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.:The High Court directed that the case be disposed of in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., which allowed certain deductions from the assessable value. The appellants argued that their claims for deductions were in line with this judgment and should be allowed. The Supreme Court had laid down principles for such deductions, which the lower authorities acknowledged but struggled to apply due to practical complications.5. Methodology for Calculating Deductions:The central issue was how to calculate the deductions for freight, taxes, and discounts. The appellants proposed an average basis for freight and taxes, arguing that separate figures for each factory and commodity were impractical. They suggested allocating total freight costs to dutiable goods only, excluding exempted and non-excisable goods. The respondents argued for a more granular approach, suggesting separate calculations for each tariff item and commodity.The tribunal concluded that deductions should be allowed on a pro-rata average basis for freight and transit insurance, considering the total transportation costs for both factories and allocating them to individual products based on weight and sale units. Taxes should also be averaged if actual allocation was impractical. Discounts and rebates should be claimed in the price lists, and their admissibility and time-bar aspects should be decided afresh by the Assistant Collector.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed by remand, directing the Assistant Collector to re-evaluate the deductions for freight, taxes, and discounts as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court's orders. The tribunal emphasized the need for a practical approach to ensure justice for both sides, acknowledging the complexities involved in the case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found