ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 13,2002

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA VS. INDIAN DYE STUFF INDS. [LAWS(CE)-2008-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
CCE VS. TAFE [LAWS(CE)-2005-4-167] [REFERRED TO]
HINDON RIVER MILLS LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2003-10-230] [REFERRED TO]
SANKESHWAR HOSIERY INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-8-170] [REFERRED TO]
TAFE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2005-3-229] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2004-8-269] [REFERRED TO]
H B L AIRCRAFT BATTERIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD [LAWS(SC)-2004-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
ESCORTS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI II [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. FIAT INDIA P LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
ESCORTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-4-193] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-6-312] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) , dated 20-1-1995.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the appellants are manufacturers of motor vehicles. They also manufacture components of motor vehicles. The components are manufactured at their factory near Madras. Some of the components are then transferred from their factory at Madras to their own units at Hosur, Alwar and Bhandara. A small percentage of the components is also sold by them in the open market as spare parts for the vehicles. The question for consideration is what is the value to be taken for payment of excise duty in respect of the components which have been removed by the appellants from their factory at Madras and transferred to the units at Hosur, Alwar and bhandara.
(3.)The Assistant Collector, Collector and CEGAT have held that the value has to be determined in accordance with Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central excise Act, 1944 (the Act). It has been held that ascertainable sale price is available. According to the appellants, in respect of the components which are transferred by them to their sister units, the value has to be ascertained under Section 4 (1) (b). According to the appellants, for such components there is no ascertainable sale price.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.