i.C.i. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

i.C.i. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 29, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/13989

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/13989
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 29, 1998
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

i.C.i. (India) Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(108)ELT723Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....209a of the rules.2. after hearing shri v. lakshmi kumaran, the learned counsel and shri k.l. ramteke, the ld. dr we feel that the appeals themselves could be disposed of after taking consent of both the parties and waiving pre-deposit.3. the short facts involved in this case are that the appellants namely ici (india) ltd. having its factory at thane, manufacture products known as agro emulsifiers -1 and agro emulsifiers - 2 and the same were transferred to their ennore unit at madras at tamil nadu state. at ennore unit of the assessee the products ae-1 and ae-2 were used for the manufacture of insecticides and pesticides which were wholly exempt from payment of duty. the question involved is whether the value of the so called technical information given by the thane unit to its ennore unit should be included for purpose of assessable value. before the adjudicating authority it was contended that for the purpose of valuation since there was no sale involved in this case the provisions of rule 6 of valuation rules should be looked into in this case.4. the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at paragraph 11 thereof had rejected the contentions of the assessee that there was no sale and held that there was a sale in this case even though the two parties to the sale viz. the so called seller and the so called purchaser is one and the same person. in our view the finding given by the adjudicating authority is wrong in law. for the purpose of sale it is elementary and fundamental that there must be a purchaser who is a distinct legal entity and a seller equally a different and distinct entity. there must be two persons before the formation of any contract of sale. in our view this fundamental point has been omitted and overlooked by the adjudicating authority. we therefore feel the impugned order suffers from illegality. therefore we set aside the same. it is represented before us that the appellants has paid out of the duty demand of rs. 24,16,198/- an amount.....

Full Judgment

1. These applications are for stay of collection of duty of Rs. 24,16,198-. The impugned order also inflicts penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on the Thane unit and other penalties namely the Madras unit of the applicant and two other persons. The penalty has been inflicted under Rule 209A of the Rules.

2. After hearing Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned Counsel and Shri K.L. Ramteke, the ld. DR we feel that the appeals themselves could be disposed of after taking consent of both the parties and waiving pre-deposit.

3. The short facts involved in this case are that the appellants namely ICI (India) Ltd. having its factory at Thane, manufacture products known as Agro Emulsifiers -1 and Agro Emulsifiers - 2 and the same were transferred to their Ennore unit at Madras at Tamil Nadu State. At Ennore unit of the assessee the products AE-1 and AE-2 were used for the manufacture of insecticides and pesticides which were wholly exempt from payment of duty. The question involved is whether the value of the so called technical information given by the Thane unit to its Ennore unit should be included for purpose of assessable value. Before the adjudicating authority it was contended that for the purpose of valuation since there was no sale involved in this case the provisions of Rule 6 of Valuation Rules should be looked into in this case.

4. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order at paragraph 11 thereof had rejected the contentions of the assessee that there was no sale and held that there was a sale in this case even though the two parties to the sale viz. the so called seller and the so called purchaser is one and the same person. In our view the finding given by the adjudicating authority is wrong in law. For the purpose of sale it is elementary and fundamental that there must be a purchaser who is a distinct legal entity and a seller equally a different and distinct entity. There must be two persons before the formation of any contract of sale. In our view this fundamental point has been omitted and overlooked by the adjudicating authority. We therefore feel the impugned order suffers from illegality. Therefore we set aside the same. It is represented before us that the appellants has paid out of the duty demand of Rs. 24,16,198/- an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. We feel that it will be appropriate for the adjudicating authority to re-examine the matter in terms of Rule 6 and give an appropriate finding. The matter is remanded after setting aside the demand of duty and penalty on all the appellants.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties i.C.i. (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Land Acquisition