Usv Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Usv Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise,

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 23, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/24606

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/24606
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jul 23, 2001
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

Usv Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(139)ELT641Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of glipizide, a bulk drug, manufactured by the appellant. the appellant used this drug in the manufacture of glynase, which it sold as a patent and proprietary medicament. glynase was exempt form duty by notification 30/88. therefore, glipizide captively consumed by the appellant in the manufacture of glynase was required to pay duty. in determining its value, therefore, the department has to resort to the provision of rule 6(1)(b) of the valuation rules. the question that arises of consideration is which of the different prices, at which the appellant sold the glipizide to buyer, should be applied.2. the department has applied the prices at which the appellant sold the goods for the quantity cleared during that period. for the sales from march 1993 till february 1994 the department applied the price of rs.51,000/- per kilogram, which is the price at which the appellant sold the two kilogram of the goods to torrent pharmaceutical in march 1993. there were no sales between march 1993 and february 1994. in february 1994, the appellant sold four kilogram to vitara chemicals at rs.50,000/- per kilogram. the department therefore applied this price for the remaining period.3. the contention of the appellant is that the sales to torrent pharmaceutical and vitara chemicals were on smaller quantity. it sold 1021.680 kilogram at rs 45,425.50 to american products co ltd during the period from 1989 to february 1992. it is this price that should be applied. we find ourselves unable to accept this proposition. the contention that the price at which the appellant sold the goods to american products co ltd was lower because a larger quantity was sold, presupposes a knowledge by the appellant of the intention, when it first sold the goods to american products and the intention of the buyer to buy the entire quantity over a period of three years. the representative of the appellant states that these state of.....

Full Judgment

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to duty of glipizide, a bulk drug, manufactured by the appellant. The appellant used this drug in the manufacture of glynase, which it sold as a patent and proprietary medicament. Glynase was exempt form duty by notification 30/88. Therefore, glipizide captively consumed by the appellant in the manufacture of glynase was required to pay duty. In determining its value, therefore, the department has to resort to the provision of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Valuation Rules. The question that arises of consideration is which of the different prices, at which the appellant sold the glipizide to buyer, should be applied.

2. The department has applied the prices at which the appellant sold the goods for the quantity cleared during that period. For the sales from March 1993 till February 1994 the department applied the price of Rs.51,000/- per kilogram, which is the price at which the appellant sold the two kilogram of the goods to Torrent Pharmaceutical in March 1993. There were no sales between March 1993 and February 1994. In February 1994, the appellant sold four kilogram to Vitara Chemicals at Rs.50,000/- per kilogram. The department therefore applied this price for the remaining period.

3. The contention of the appellant is that the sales to Torrent Pharmaceutical and Vitara Chemicals were on smaller quantity. It sold 1021.680 kilogram at Rs 45,425.50 to American Products Co Ltd during the period from 1989 to February 1992. It is this price that should be applied. We find ourselves unable to accept this proposition. The contention that the price at which the appellant sold the goods to American Products Co Ltd was lower because a larger quantity was sold, presupposes a knowledge by the appellant of the intention, when it first sold the goods to American Products and the intention of the buyer to buy the entire quantity over a period of three years. The representative of the appellant states that these state of affairs did not exist. There was no earlier contract or arrangement between the two parties. That being the case, each quantity that is sold at a particular time to the buyer that has to be taken into account.

Besides, the appellant did not have a schedule of quantity discount as accepted by the representative for the appellant. In these circumstances, the department was correct in basing the value under Rule 6 on the prices at which the appellant sold the goods during the period contemporaneous to the period that the appellant captively consumed the goods. We therefore find no ground for interference.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Usv Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Same Subject Land Acquisition