Universal Cassettes and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Universal Cassettes and anr. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 25, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19229

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/19229
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: G Srinivasan, S T S.S.
Decided On: Sep 25, 2000
Subject: Intellectual Property

Case Summary

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

Intellectual Property

Key legal issue: Intellectual Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Universal Cassettes and anr.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(72)ECC628

Excerpt

.....tried to approve the approach of the assistant collector in working out the price as per rule 7 of the valuation rules. he states that what is sought to be levied is the price of the copyright holder.3. we have analysed the argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant. the supreme court in the clarificatory order in the case of ujjagar prints v. union of india 1988 (39) elt 493 at page 494 held as follows: the price at which he is selling the goods must be the value of the grey cloth or the fabric plus the value of the job work done plus the manufacturing profit and the manufacturing expenses but not any other subsequent profits or expenses. it is necessary to include the processors expenses, costs and charges plus profit but it is not necessary to include the traders profit to get the fabrics processed because those would be post-manufacturing profit. what is therefore needed now is the consideration of deduction of the margin of profit of the copyright holders to arrive at the correct best judgment price under rule 7 of the valuation rules.5. the above observation, in our view, of the collector (appeals), while remanding the matter regarding the deduction of the margin of profit of the copyright holders is in line with what is held by the supreme court in ujjagar prints clarificatory order referred to above.whatever arguments made by the learned counsel before us can be made before the adjudicating authority. we are therefore of the view that the order passed by the collector (appeals) under the circumstances is correct in law and the assessee can made all his representation before the adjudicating authority to whom the matter has been remanded.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant is recording master tapes supplied by Gramophone Company of India Limited (GCIL) and producing copies on the cassettes.

Show Cause Notice dated 6.9.1994 was issued stating that the price charged by GCIL or Music India Limited (MIL) should be considered as normal price under Section 4 of the Act and final approval to be given to the price lists filed by the appellants. Differential duty was sought to be demanded thereafter. By the order dated 10.9.1985 the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand against which an appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals), who by his order dated 6.1.1995 remanded the matter after following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujjagar Prints' case . Against the 2. Shri DD Gwalani, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the order of the appellate authority is wrong, inasmuch as he has tried to approve the approach of the Assistant Collector in working out the price as per Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. He states that what is sought to be levied is the price of the copyright holder.

3. We have analysed the argument made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Supreme Court in the clarificatory order in the case of Ujjagar Prints v. Union of India 1988 (39) ELT 493 at page 494 held as follows: The price at which he is selling the goods must be the value of the grey cloth or the fabric plus the value of the job work done plus the manufacturing profit and the manufacturing expenses but not any other subsequent profits or expenses. It is necessary to include the processors expenses, costs and charges plus profit but it is not necessary to include the traders profit to get the fabrics processed because those would be post-manufacturing profit.

What is therefore needed now is the consideration of deduction of the margin of profit of the copyright holders to arrive at the correct best judgment price under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules.

5. The above observation, in our view, of the Collector (Appeals), while remanding the matter regarding the deduction of the margin of profit of the copyright holders is in line with what is held by the Supreme Court in Ujjagar Prints clarificatory order referred to above.

Whatever arguments made by the learned Counsel before us can be made before the adjudicating authority. We are therefore of the view that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under the circumstances is correct in law and the assessee can made all his representation before the adjudicating authority to whom the matter has been remanded.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Universal Cassettes and anr. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Intellectual Property Same Judge G Srinivasan, S T S.S.

Intellectual Property Adjudicating authority supreme court Normal price To arrive at Has been Job work in law