Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
The assessee Integral Coach Factory (ICF) belonging to the Central Government is engaged in the business of manufacturing passenger coaches both self-propelled and non-propelled, steel freight containers and parts of passenger coaches for railways under Chapter 86 of CET 1985.
In the case of M/s.Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs. The Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that CENVAT credit on capital goods used in the erection of various capital goods, viz., M.S.Plates, M.S.Angles, M.S.Channels and H.R. Plates, which were purchased
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. M/s. Global Health Care Products , the Supreme Court held that ‘Close up’ should be classified as dental cleaner, not toothpaste on account of different
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid in respect of cell phone services, catering services
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Swastika Enterprise held that the endorsement on the bill of entry to pay additional customs duty is a demand and not mere a provisional assessment. Thus, the duty payable due to such endorsement can be settled as settlement of demand under indirect taxes demand settlement scheme.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham & others held that the estate of a dead person cannot be attached for recovery of excise duty payable because there is no enabling provision in the Act to do so.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.S. Rathnam& Sons held that when two methods are permissible under the statutory scheme itself to discharge duty liability then merely because with the adoption of one particular method the duty that becomes payable is lesser
A job work transaction triggers Excise Duty liability if the process involves manufacture. The consequent question that arises is how to determine assessable value of the goods involved. The various provisions that linger in one’s mind are Rule 10 A 0r Rule 8 or Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000.
A small disclaimer before proceeding – this is my first write up and I hope you rate me on same basis. Before reasoning why I prefer Practice over the other, I would like to confess straight away that none of them is superior over the other. Choose what you would like be in future, choose where you want to see yourself some years down the line, whether as a CEO/CFO/the likes or a successful entrepreneur of something of your own.
ITAT Mumbai held in case of ACIT vs. Suryashankar Properties Limited that Intention of letting out the property is to be seen for invoking clause (c) of section 23(1) for computing the annual letting value of the property and it is irrelevant whether the property is/was let out.
