Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.

4 SCC 349Reported decision1995#12744 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2021.

Judgments citing Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.

M/S. Bafna Jangda Construction, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1052/PUN/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1052/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Bafna Jangda Construction, C- 314, Business Court, Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfb6141B बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward- 11(4), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune (‘The Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2011 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Lower Authority Has Erred Both On Facts & On Law In Rejecting Appellant’S Claim U/S 80Ib(10). Same May Please Be Allowed. 2. Lower Authority Has Erred In Excluding The Land Area Of 1,508.49 Sq.Mtrs. For Road Widening. As Total Size Of Plot Of Land Of The Project Is 4,722.45 Sq. Mtrs. As Such More Than One Acre. Hence Appellant Be Declared Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ib(10). 3. A) Assessee Firm Denies Its Liability To Interest U/S 234B.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80I

…arned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the r entire judgment......" 21. In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand 1993 4 SCC 349, this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh 1993 4 SCC 403, this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are 11 only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be dra…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore vs. M/S. Tvs Motors Company Ltd

C.A. No.-005155-005156 - 2007Supreme Court15 Dec 2015
Section 4Section 4(3)(d)

…The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Department and the aforesaid decision was upheld by this Court in the judgment reported as 1999 (111) ELT A126. 10. The position in respect of unamended provision, thus, is very 7 (1984) 1 SCC 467 8 (1995) 4 SCC 349 9 1998 (103) ELT 606 Civil Appeal Nos. 5155-5156 of 2007 & Ors. Page 12 of 27 Page 13 JUDGMENT clear. Coming to the amendment in Section 4 of the Act, in the year 2000, it may be noted in the first instance that definition of 'transaction value' as per Section 4(3)(d) is exhaustive and covers within its purview, the price of goods and va…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore vs. M/S. Tvs Motors Company Ltd

C.A. No.-005155-005156 - 2007Supreme Court15 Dec 2015
Section 4Section 4(3)(d)

…The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Department and the aforesaid decision was upheld by this Court in the judgment reported as 1999 (111) ELT A126. 10. The position in respect of unamended provision, thus, is very 7 (1984) 1 SCC 467 8 (1995) 4 SCC 349 9 1998 (103) ELT 606 Civil Appeal Nos. 5155-5156 of 2007 & Ors. Page 12 of 27 Page 13 JUDGMENT clear. Coming to the amendment in Section 4 of the Act, in the year 2000, it may be noted in the first instance that definition of 'transaction value' as per Section 4(3)(d) is exhaustive and covers within its purview, the price of goods and va…

Commissioner of Customs and C.E.Nagpur vs. M/S. Ispat Industries Ltd

C.A. No.-000637-000637 - 2007Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 4

…will include the cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery.” [at para 50] 14. This view of the law was reiterated in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 349. Interestingly, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, cost of transportation from the factory gate to the place of removal not forming part of excise duty was conceded by the revenue. 15. Section 4 as substituted by the 1973 Amendment Act suffered a further amendment in 1996. The amendments carried out were to have effect from 28.9.199…

Commissioner of Customs and C.E.Nagpur vs. M/S. Ispat Industries Ltd

C.A. No.-000637-000637 - 2007Supreme Court07 Oct 2015
Section 4

…will include the cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery.” [at para 50] 14. This view of the law was reiterated in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 349. Interestingly, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, cost of transportation from the factory gate to the place of removal not forming part of excise duty was conceded by the revenue. 15. Section 4 as substituted by the 1973 Amendment Act suffered a further amendment in 1996. The amendments carried out were to have effect from 28.9.199…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat vs. M/S. Surat Textiles Mills Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly with the above direction

C.A. No.-002357-002361 - 2002Supreme Court26 Apr 2004
For Respondent: M/s. Surat Textiles Mills Ltd. & Ors

…and against the assessee. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing on either side placed strong reliance on the following judgments for and against : 1. Government of India and Others vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. and Others [(1995) 4 SCC 349] 2. Philips India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [(1997) 6 SCC 31] 3. M/s. Ujagar Prints and Others (III) vs. Union of India and Others [(1989) 3 SCC 531] 4. Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2003(111) ECR 776 (SC) = JT 2003(9) SC 595 5. Union of India and Others vs. Bombay Tyre Internat…

Collector of Central Excise, Indore vs. M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Chhindwara

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

C.A. No.-000303-000304 - 1999Supreme Court03 Aug 2000
For Respondent: M/S.HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD., CHHINDWARA
Section 4(4)(d)

…occurred in transit, admittedly after the goods were removed from the factory-gate; therefore, such a deduction is not permissible in law. He also relied upon a subsequent decision of this Court in Madras Rubber Factory case reported in (1995) 4 SCC 349, at page 384) wherein this Court after referring to the judgment in the earlier case of M.R.F. (supra) held: - As rightly pointed out by Bhagwati, C.J. in the order dated 20.12.1986, what is really relevant is the nature of the transaction (SCC p.760, para 8). The learned Chief Justice pointed out further that the…

Comnr. of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vikram Detergent Ltd

The appeals are allowed to

C.A. No.-002579-002579 - 2000Supreme Court16 Jan 2000
For Respondent: M/S VIKRAM DETERGENT LTD
Section 4Section 4(4)(d)

…International Ltd. and Others 1984 (1) SCC 467= 1984 (17) ELT 329 (SC) as well as Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others V. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. 1986 (Supp.)SCC 751 as well as Government of India V. Madras Factorey Ltd. (1995) 4 SCC 349, 359 . These decisions also held that the cost of transportation would include cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery but would not include compensation for defective goods. The position was further clarified in Collector of Central Excise, Meerut…

Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (4 SCC 349) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax