Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Headings 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant availed Cenvat credit on inputs as well as input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products.
Since there was no evidence of higher value of contemporaneous import from same sources and no allegation of mis-declaration of impugned goods, declared value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data. In the present case, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules cannot be invoked.
Hercules Hoists Ltd. (the Appellant) was a manufacturer of machinery and parts thereof which were cleared on payment of Excise duty. The Appellant had also taken the responsibility of installing the machinery at the customer’s premises.
When the clearances were not on sale but were purely on stock transfer basis, there is no question of Satnoor unit having recovered the incidence of duty from Abu Road unit and, as such, the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply.
In the instant case, an Order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Goa confirming Service tax liability on Kala Mines and Minerals (the Appellant). Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai by making a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service tax demand confirmed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act).
In the instant case, the three Appellants namely Matunga Gymkhana, Tahnee Heights Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. and Mittal Tower Premises Co-Operative Society (the Appellants) were running a club for their members.
Moser Baer India Ltd.(the Appellant) is the manufacturer of CDR, CD Rom, DVDR and DVD Rom, falling under Chapter Heading 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, at their factory situated at Noida. The Head Office of the Appellant, located at Okhla, Delhi is registered as an Input Service Distributer (ISD) in terms of Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules).
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was rendering Customer care services to the customers of CDMA mobile phone in India on behalf of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Korea (Samsung Korea).
Constitution of a High Level Committee to suggest measures for improved monitoring of the implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility policies by the companies under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. General Circular no. 01/2015 – Dated: 03.02.2015
EPFO settles more than One crore claims in the current financial year Employees Pension Fund deficit comes down to 2.5% Shri K.K. Jalan, Central P.F. Commissioner while reviewing the performance of EPFO for the month of January, 2015 noted that the organization has settled 11.05 lakh claims. 73% of the claims were settled within 10 […]
