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

        <h1>Excise duty recovery set aside as sales tax abatement must be based on liability at clearance time</h1> <h3>Mahle Behr India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – II</h3> Mahle Behr India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – II - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the difference between the actual collection and the amount deposited under the deferred sales tax scheme constitutes additional consideration for goods sold.2. Applicability of the principles laid down in previous judgments by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal regarding the treatment of sales tax in determining the assessable value for excise duty.3. Interpretation of the scheme allowing pre-payment of deferred sales tax at net present value (NPV) and its impact on excise duty liability.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Additional Consideration for Goods Sold:The central issue was whether the difference between the actual sales tax collected and the amount deposited under the deferred sales tax scheme should be considered additional consideration for goods sold, thereby attracting excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated that this difference amounted to additional consideration, leading to a demand for duty recovery under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalties.2. Applicability of Previous Judgments:The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's decision in Rational Engineers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane - I, which relied on the principles established in Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad v. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. These cases distinguished the current issue from the Supreme Court's decision in Super Synotex (India) Ltd, where the retention of a portion of collected sales tax was considered part of the transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the scheme in question involved pre-payment at NPV, which did not equate to retention of any amount by the assessee but rather a discounting of future tax liabilities.3. Interpretation of the Deferred Sales Tax Scheme:The Tribunal examined the nature of the deferred sales tax scheme, which allowed manufacturers to pre-pay their deferred tax liabilities at NPV. This pre-payment was deemed a discharge of the total sales tax liability. The Tribunal found that the scheme did not alter the rate of sales tax or provide an exemption but merely allowed for an early discharge of liability. Therefore, the pre-payment at NPV did not constitute additional consideration.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the principles laid down in the Super Synotex case were not directly applicable to the present case. The deferred sales tax scheme's provision for pre-payment at NPV did not change the character of the amount collected as sales tax. The Tribunal held that the assessable value for excise duty should be determined based on the sales tax liability at the time of removal of goods, not on subsequent changes in the law or payment terms. Consequently, the demand for duty and other penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.Final Judgment:The appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order, following the Tribunal's decision in Rational Engineers Pvt Ltd and related cases, which clarified that pre-payment of deferred sales tax at NPV does not constitute additional consideration for goods sold. The order was pronounced in the open court on 10/09/2024.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found