COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

transferred to a depot or other premises which is said to be at or about the same time or the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. 22. To complete the picture, by an Amendment Act with effect from 14.5.2003, Section 4 was again amended so as to re-include sub-clause (iii) of old Section

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

transfer of title from the manufacturer to a third party. Accordingly, the amount paid to the State Government is only excludible from the transaction value. What is not payable or to be paid as sales tax/VAT, should not be charged from the third party/customer, but if it charged and is not payable or paid, it is a part and should

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

transferred to various Branch Sales Offices from where they are sold to the customers. The sales either from the factory or from the BSOs are in terms of purchase Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2012 & Ors. Page 3 of 29 Page 4 JUDGMENT 4 orders received from the customers. The assessee sold the rails to the Indian Railways in terms

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

price is the sole consideration for the sale:” (4) For the purposes of this section, - (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent;” 11. Recovery of sums due to Government. - In respect of duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ESSAR STEEL LTD

Sections 14 and 14(1-A) are clear and explicit. The Rules and the Act, therefore, must be construed, having regard to the basic principles of interpretation in mind. 11. What would, therefore, be excluded for computing the assessable value for the purpose of levy of customs duty, inter alia, has clearly been stated therein, namely, any amount paid

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

price would be left to the whims and fancies of the assessing authority. This argument was repelled by this Court after setting out Sections 2(g) and 2(ja), which define “sale” and “works contract”. The Court then went on to discuss Sections 9(2) and 13(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 9(2) of the Central

M/S. ESCORTS LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, FARIDABAD

The appeal is allowed accordingly

transferred any transmission assemblies to any other person. However, they have been supplying the transmission assembly to their own units at Nagpur and Rudhrapur for manufacturing tractors. (b) It is submitted that this letter can at most lead to a conclusion that the transmission assembly made by M & M is marketable. 50. The show cause notice has placed reliance