COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI Vs. MARUTI UDHYOG LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 27,2002
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,DELHI
Appellant
VERSUS
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HINDUSTAN SUGAR MILLS J K SYNTHETICS LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED]ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MODI RUBBER LIMITED VS. BATA INDIA LTD [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
COLFAX INDIA PVT LTD VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-64] [REFERRED TO]GENERAL ENGINEERING WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2005-3-139] [RELIED ON]
IN RE: BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT VS. STATE [LAWS(AR)-2005-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
C.C.E. JALANDHAR VS. BIRLA MASUZAWA SILK MILLS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(CE)-2015-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN PRESS TOOLS LTD. VS. CESTAT, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-358] [REFERRED TO]
CELLEBRUM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2015-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2012-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA VS. COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2014-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR SPUN PIPES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2014-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. C.C.E., VADODARA-I [LAWS(CE)-2012-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
ALUMAYER INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-IV [LAWS(CE)-2011-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
SUMO POLYCONVERTERS AND SHRI UDAY RAMCHANDRA RALKAR VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2010-2-119] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR PLASTICS, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2010-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI DEEPAK F. SHAH, CCE., AHMEDABAD I AND M/S. SHREE CHEM INTERMEDIATES VS. CCE., AHMEDABAD I AND M/S. SHREE CHEM INTERMEDIATES [LAWS(CE)-2014-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN MINERAL PRODUCTS CO. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., SURAT-II [LAWS(CE)-2008-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD VS. SCAN COMPUTER CONSULTANCY [LAWS(CE)-2008-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
TRAC AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANG.-II [LAWS(CE)-2005-9-86] [RELIED ON]
CHEERAMALIL PLASTICS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX., COCHIN [LAWS(CE)-2006-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
CRAFT INTERIORS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2005-5-121] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. YOUSUF ALI VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (APPEALS), MANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2006-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE VS. PROMPT & SMART SECURITY [LAWS(CE)-2007-9-91] [RELIED ON]
COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., HYDERABAD-II VS. WORLDSPACE INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2008-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
VICTORY PAPER & BOARDS (I) LTD. (VPBIL) VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., CALICUT [LAWS(CE)-2007-6-114] [REFERRED TO]
SUJANA STEEL LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I [LAWS(CE)-2009-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2007-2-134] [REFERRED TO]
TREADWELL RUBBERS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2007-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
TAFE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2005-3-229] [REFERRED TO]
FARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2005-3-259] [REFERRED TO]
ALPS INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2005-3-326] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL RADIATORS LTD. AND SOUTHERN PRESS TOOLS VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2007-8-275] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE LUCKNOW U P VS. CHHATA SUGAR CO LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2004-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXISE DELHI VS. ACTION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT P LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR VS. DUGAR TETENAL INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA METERS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA METERS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
VAMSHI RUBBER LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD [LAWS(CE)-2004-5-159] [REFERRED TO]
BUILDO MAT VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2004-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOCHI VS. POWER CONTROLS LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2003-12-181] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE VS. ITC LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2005-2-162] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCO GRANITES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2005-2-167] [REFERRED TO]
NIRULA AND CO. (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-6-189] [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-12-208] [REFERRED TO]
T.T.K. PHARMA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2002-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
CDC CARBOLIC (I) PVT. LTD. AND C. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-4-187] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-5-274] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. VS. NEW SANDHU METAL WORKS [LAWS(CE)-2004-4-241] [REFERRED TO]
BECO CHEMICALS (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-241] [REFERRED TO]
NARANG SCIENTIFIC WORKS (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2002-12-196] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN ENGG. WORKS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SHYAMA PAPERS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2004-2-355] [REFERRED TO]
PLASOPAN ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
M. VEERABADHRAN VS. CCE AND RAVI KUMAR AND CO. [LAWS(CE)-2004-10-181] [REFERRED TO]
OPAL AUTO INDUSTRIES VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2002-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI METALS PVT. LTD., MAMTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-3-304] [REFERRED TO]
MARC PHARMACEUTICALS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2004-10-218] [REFERRED TO]
KEMFIN CHEMICALS (P) LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2003-4-213] [REFERRED TO]
KLEEN-RITE ENTERPRISES VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2004-3-321] [REFERRED TO]
METHODEX SYSTEMS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-6-332] [REFERRED TO]
CCE VS. SHIVALIK AGRO POLY PRODUCTS [LAWS(CE)-2003-9-421] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2002-10-188] [REFERRED TO]
VARALAKSHMI PLASTICS VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-9-435] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN TOBACCO LIMITED VS. CCE (ADJUDICATION) [LAWS(CE)-2010-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
GOLD PLAST VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2005-2-208] [REFERRED TO]
COOL DESSERTS AND SHRI NEERAJ JAIN, PARTNER VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2005-1-224] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. TWIGA FIBERGLASS LTD. VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2005-2-271] [REFERRED TO]
BORG INSTRUMENTATION PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I [LAWS(CE)-2002-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
BILCO ENGG. WORKS AND ANR. VS. CCE, CHANDIGARH-I [LAWS(CE)-2003-2-170] [REFERRED TO]
CCE, CHANDIGARH VS. HANSA METALLIC LIMITED [LAWS(CE)-2003-3-304] [REFERRED TO]
SARLA PERFORMANCE FIBERS LIMITED ETC. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-2016-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
RISHABH VELVELEEN LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
ERIC MENEZES VS. EXCISE INSPECTOR, IN-CHARGE COLFAX LABORATORIES (INDIA) [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-283] [REFERRED]
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT IRT VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND K JEEVANANDAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-757] [REFERRED]
KASTURCHAND BAFNA VS. STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-19] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. VASU CHEMICALS [LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-288] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The respondent is manufacturing motor vehicles and it had availed of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. As it had not paid any excise duty on the raw material, it became liable to pay excise duty on the waste and scrap of aluminium and iron and steel which scrap had been sold by the respondent.
(2.)The Collector raised a demand of excise duty on the waste and scrap which was sold. The demand was challenged by the respondent who contended that excise duty was not payable. Having been unsuccessful before the Collector, an appeal was filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that excise duty was payable on the scrap sold by the respondent. It further came to the conclusion that the price on which the waste and scrap had been sold should be considered to be cum-duty price and the assessable value should be determined after deducting the element of excise duty. It is this part of the decision of the Tribunal which is sought to be challenged by the Revenue in this appeal.
(3.)The respondent had sold the scrap and according to it the purchaser was not liable to pay any amount in addition thereto and it is for this reason the Tribunal regarded this transaction as being one of cum-duty price.
(2.)The Collector raised a demand of excise duty on the waste and scrap which was sold. The demand was challenged by the respondent who contended that excise duty was not payable. Having been unsuccessful before the Collector, an appeal was filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that excise duty was payable on the scrap sold by the respondent. It further came to the conclusion that the price on which the waste and scrap had been sold should be considered to be cum-duty price and the assessable value should be determined after deducting the element of excise duty. It is this part of the decision of the Tribunal which is sought to be challenged by the Revenue in this appeal.
(3.)The respondent had sold the scrap and according to it the purchaser was not liable to pay any amount in addition thereto and it is for this reason the Tribunal regarded this transaction as being one of cum-duty price.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.