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.

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. Kinetic Engineering Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise and vs Kinetic Engineering Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 13, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/21406

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 Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise and

Respondent

Kinetic Engineering Limited

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(138)ELT344Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. kinetic engineering ltd., the respondent to this appeal, sells its goods both at the factory gate and from the depots. the question for consideration in this appeal field by the department is whether charges collected by it from its buyers at the depots towards depot operating charges are includable in the assessable value. in the order impugned in the appeal, the commissioner (appeals) has applied the ratio of the judgement of the supreme court in indian oxygen ltd vs. cce 1998 (36) elt 723 to conclude that since factory gate sale price was available, it is that price should apply to both the sales at the factory gate and the goods sold the depots for sale there from.2. the challenge to this conclusion is on the ground that the purchasers of the goods form the depots of the respondents are a different class of buyer. apart from the fact that the notice to show cause does not allege this ground, we don not see how this claim is relevant. by the judgement of the supreme court in indian oxygen ltd. vs. cce, the ratio which has been reaffirmed in paragraphs 18 and 21 of the its judgement in goi vs. mrf 1995 elt 433, where there are sales both form the factory gate and form the depot, it is the factory gate price that should be applied to determine the value both of goods sold at the factory gate, and of goods transferred to the depot for sale there. that, as we have noted, is what the commissioner (appeals) has done. we therefore see no reason to interfere.

Full Judgment

1. Kinetic Engineering Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, sells its goods both at the factory gate and from the depots. The question for consideration in this appeal field by the department is whether charges collected by it from its buyers at the depots towards depot operating charges are includable in the assessable value. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd Vs. CCE 1998 (36) ELT 723 to conclude that since factory gate sale price was available, it is that price should apply to both the sales at the factory gate and the goods sold the depots for sale there from.

2. The challenge to this conclusion is on the ground that the purchasers of the goods form the depots of the respondents are a different class of buyer. Apart from the fact that the notice to show cause does not allege this ground, we don not see how this claim is relevant. By the judgement of the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. CCE, the ratio which has been reaffirmed in paragraphs 18 and 21 of the its judgement in GOI Vs. MRF 1995 ELT 433, where there are sales both form the factory gate and form the depot, it is the factory gate price that should be applied to determine the value both of goods sold at the factory gate, and of goods transferred to the depot for sale there. That, as we have noted, is what the Commissioner (Appeals) has done. We therefore see no reason to interfere.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial