Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975

7 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-ILLversusMIS. EMCO LTD.

2015 INSC 100731 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, M/s EMCO Ltd., manufactures transformers and pays central excise duty on the price at which it sells them to State Electricity Boards. The Revenue argued that the transaction value for duty purposes must include freight and transit‑insurance costs, contending that the place of removal was the buyer’s prem

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAIversusM/S. FIAT INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR.

2012 INSC 36229 August 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, manufacturers of Fiat Uno cars, declared wholesale prices that were well below their manufacturing cost, claiming the price was the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging short levy and demanded differential duty, arguing that the pr

NIRLON LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

2015 INSC 34923 April 2015Case Partly allowed

Nirlon Ltd., a manufacturer of tyre cord yarn and fabric, filed price declarations under Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 using Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules, treating goods removed for captive consumption the same as those sold at the factory gate. The Excise Commissioner, relying on a cost accountan

MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTDversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND . CUSTOMS, DAMAN

2011 INSC 4914 January 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether "physician samples" of patented and proprietary medicines, which are distributed free of cost to doctors and prohibited from sale under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are liable to central excise duty. It held that excise duty is a tax on manufacture, not on sale, and therefore the stat

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABADversusM/S. BAJAJ AUTO LTD., WALUJ, AURANGABAD, THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT (MATERIALS) AND ORS.

2010 INSC 77512 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. alleging that it supplied aluminum ingots to M/s. Anurang Engineering at an under‑valued landed cost, thereby evading excise duty on the finished castings. The adjudicating authority held Bajaj liable for duty, penalty and interest, b

M/S. UTC FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR

2015 INSC 98810 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

UTC Fire and Security India Ltd manufactures smoke detectors that are sold either in loose form or as part of turnkey fire‑fighting projects. The Central Excise authorities valued the detectors used captively in the turnkey contracts by applying Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 4 of the 1975 Val

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search