Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kruti Cosmetics and Lotus

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kruti Cosmetics and Lotus

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 16, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34969

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/34969
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, A M Moheb
Decided On: Apr 16, 2004
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Kruti Cosmetics and Lotus

Excerpt

1. these two appeals by the revenue arise out of the common order of the commissioner (appeals) who set aside the orders of the lower authority.2. the issue pertains to determination of assessable value of excisable goods cleared by a manufacturer who under an agreement with the brand name holder manufactures goods and sells the entire product to the brand name holder who in turn sells them at prices far higher than the one at which the goods are sold to him by the manufacturer. the assistant commissioner (the lower authority) felt that the prices at which the brand name holder sells the goods should be taken for the purpose of assessment. in appeal, the commissioner (appeals) sets aside the order of the assistant commissioner stating that there is no rule or section in the central excise rules and the act respectively which permits such a method. the transaction between the manufacturer and the brand name holder is on principal to principal basis. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority.3. this order is reviewed by the commissioner who opines that the order of the commissioner (appeals) is not legal and proper and these appeals are the result of such opinion of the commissioner. in fact revenue collectors would rarely resist the temptation to file appeals when orders are passed against the interest of revenue.5. the issue involved here is covered in the following decisions, (1) burman laboratories ltd. vs. cce, indore 2000 (122) elt 52 (t), (2) kulwant electrical industries vs. oui 1999 (109) elt 23 (sc) and (3) cce, calcutta-1 vs fairy kosmetix 1997 (21) rlt 160 (t). the revenue does not cite a single judgment which favours them. the learned sdr conceded that he does not have any case law to offer in support of the revenue's contention. the revenue was aware of the ratio of the judgments cited supra. but then, they should let the system go on.shouldn't they!

Full Judgment

1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the orders of the lower authority.

2. The issue pertains to determination of assessable value of excisable goods cleared by a manufacturer who under an agreement with the brand name holder manufactures goods and sells the entire product to the brand name holder who in turn sells them at prices far higher than the one at which the goods are sold to him by the manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner (the lower authority) felt that the prices at which the brand name holder sells the goods should be taken for the purpose of assessment. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) sets aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner stating that there is no rule or section in the Central Excise Rules and the Act respectively which permits such a method. The transaction between the manufacturer and the brand name holder is on principal to principal basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority.

3. This order is reviewed by the Commissioner who opines that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper and these appeals are the result of such opinion of the Commissioner. In fact Revenue Collectors would rarely resist the temptation to file appeals when orders are passed against the interest of Revenue.

5. The issue involved here is covered in the following decisions, (1) Burman Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore 2000 (122) ELT 52 (T), (2) Kulwant Electrical Industries vs. OUI 1999 (109) ELT 23 (SC) and (3) CCE, Calcutta-1 vs Fairy Kosmetix 1997 (21) RLT 160 (T). The revenue does not cite a single judgment which favours them. The learned SDR conceded that he does not have any case law to offer in support of the Revenue's contention. The Revenue was aware of the ratio of the judgments cited supra. But then, they should let the system go on.

Shouldn't they!

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs Kruti Cosmetics and Lotus Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, A M Moheb