Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Annapurna Biscuits (Mfg) Co. Vs. Cce

Annapurna Biscuits (Mfg) Co. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 14, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13432

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Annapurna Biscuits (Mfg) Co.

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(79)LC195Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

1. the assessee challenges the order-in-appeal dt. 30.4.1992 passed by the collector (appeals), delhi confirming the order passed by the assistant collector, kanpur, approving price list filed by the appellant but disallowing deductions claimed.2. appellant engaged in the manufacture of biscuits as job worker of hcpl, filed price list declaring appellant's price to hcpl and when directed to file price list declaring the price charged by the hcpl to wholesale dealers, filed such a price list under protest but claiming deductions on account of average freight, interest on inventories, distribution cost and interest on receivables incurred by hcpl in regard to biscuits sold at their depots. assistant collector declined deduction on these expenses on the ground that the expenses were met not by the appellant but by hcpl. this, reasoning and conclusion have been upheld by the collector (appeals).3. appellant could have insisted on approval of the original price list filed based on the ujagar formula but on the direction of the department, filed another price lit declaring hcpl price to wholesale dealers. hcpl collecting such price from their wholesale dealers, were meeting certain expenses out of the price realised from the wholesale dealers. if hpcl was to be treated as the manufacturer and the hcpl price to their dealers was to be treated as the basis for determination of assessable value, all admissible costs-incurred by hcpl should be deducted. there is no doubt that the hcpl price to dealers was shown by the appellant in the price list though under protest. out of various claims, we find that the claim for deduction of interest on receivables, non-recoverable sales tax and octroi; equalised freight and transit insurance would be admissible for deduction. we direct accordingly. the claim for deduction of interest on inventories and distribution cost would not be admissible.4. we modify the impugned order as indicated above and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The assessee challenges the order-in-appeal dt. 30.4.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Delhi confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Kanpur, approving price list filed by the appellant but disallowing deductions claimed.

2. Appellant engaged in the manufacture of Biscuits as job worker of HCPL, filed price list declaring appellant's price to HCPL and when directed to file price list declaring the price charged by the HCPL to wholesale dealers, filed such a price list under protest but claiming deductions on account of average freight, interest on inventories, distribution cost and interest on receivables incurred by HCPL in regard to biscuits sold at their depots. Assistant Collector declined deduction on these expenses on the ground that the expenses were met not by the appellant but by HCPL. This, reasoning and conclusion have been upheld by the Collector (Appeals).

3. Appellant could have insisted on approval of the original price list filed based on the Ujagar formula but on the direction of the department, filed another price lit declaring HCPL price to wholesale dealers. HCPL collecting such price from their wholesale dealers, were meeting certain expenses out of the price realised from the wholesale dealers. If HPCL was to be treated as the manufacturer and the HCPL price to their dealers was to be treated as the basis for determination of assessable value, all admissible costs-incurred by HCPL should be deducted. There is no doubt that the HCPL price to dealers was shown by the appellant in the price list though under protest. Out of various claims, we find that the claim for deduction of interest on receivables, non-recoverable sales tax and octroi; equalised freight and transit insurance would be admissible for deduction. We direct accordingly. The claim for deduction of interest on inventories and distribution cost would not be admissible.

4. We modify the impugned order as indicated above and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial