The Registrar within whose jurisdiction the registered office of the company is proposed to be situated shall process INC-29 including application for allotment of Director Identification Number.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (the Petitioner) is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Union of India. During the Assessment Year 1999-2000, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 (Impugned period), the Petitioner has sold diesel to the Railways.
SRF Ltd. (the Appellant) imported Nylon Filament Yarn of 210 deniers falling under Chapter 54 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and claimed nil rate of additional duty of Customs/ Countervailing Duty (CVD” by virtue of Serial No. 122 of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated March 1, 2002 (the Notification).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Barge charges were not includible in the assessable value of imported goods and the amount collected by Revenue as Barge charges needs to be refunded along with interest.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II Vs. Super Syncotex (India Ltd.)[2014 301 ELT 273 (S.C.)], held that after July 1, 2000, Sales tax portion collected but not paid to State Government on account of incentive scheme will form part of the transaction value of excisable goods and observed that:
On coating uncoated paper, an article with different name commercially may have emerged but it is not a distinct article with different character or use and therefore no manufacturing process was involved when uncoated printing and writing paper is coated.
Issue involved in the instant case was, whether penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Credit Rules/ Rule 13 of the Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Excise Act is leviable, when the Department denied the irregular Cenvat credit taken by Flextronics Technologies (India) (P.) Ltd. (‘the Respondent’ or “’the Assessee’) after audit was conducted at their premises.
Facts of the case are that, Srinivasa Enterprises (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Assessee’) rented out its property to State VAT Department and collected Service tax thereon and paid same to Service Tax Department. Later on, the Assessee and State VAT Department came to know that renting of immovable property to State Government (VAT Department) was not taxable.
No Mandatory Pre-deposit for pursuing the Appellate remedy before the CESTAT as right of appeal for any case instituted prior to August 6, 2014 and such case is governed by the law prevailing at the date of institution of the suit or proceeding
A raid under Section 82 of the Finance Act was carried out in the premises of the Exman Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) on March 25, 2014. Statement under Section 14 of the Excise Act was recorded of the Managing Director of the Petitioner wherein it was submitted that Service tax liability of the Petitioner exist but amount calculation will be provided later.
