9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 426 - SC - Central ExciseCum duty price - Whether the price at which the respondent sold the product should be treated as cum duty price and therefore the excise duty should be deducted from the price for arriving at the assessable value - remanded back to the Commissioner for re-quantification against which the revenue has no grievance Brand name of a foreign company - Whether affixation of brand name of a foreign company but otherwise registered in the name of the Indian company would disentitle the Indian company namely the assessee to the benefit of exemption under SSI notification 1/93 - revenue did not challenge the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (1992 -TMI - 44473 - HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA) and (1994 -TMI - 44498 - HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA), the revenue cannot be permitted to re-agitate the point which is concluded by the aofre-mentioned judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the present appeal, Tribunal against the revenue relying upon a judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd.
Issues:
1. Whether the price at which the respondent sold the product should be treated as cum duty price for excise duty calculation. 2. Whether affixation of a foreign company's brand name disentitles the Indian company to SSI exemption. Analysis: 1. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner for re-quantification regarding the treatment of the product price for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal's findings on this point were affirmed, and the revenue did not contest this decision. 2. The Tribunal ruled against the revenue on the issue of brand name affixation based on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The revenue did not appeal this decision, making it final. The revenue cannot re-agitate this point as it was conclusively decided by the Calcutta High Court judgment, and this position was supported by a Supreme Court judgment in another case. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
