The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that a service recipient can only see the Cenvatable document under which Service tax paid/ payable has been indicated. However, it is not the case of the revenue that the service provider does not exist.
CCE Vs. Shrushthi Plastics (P) Ltd. – CESTAT, Chennai, applied the ratio of the Apex court decision in case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai [2006-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-MAD], which squarely applies to the instant case
CCE Vs. Control & Switchgears Contactors Ltd. – Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that while the Respondent had declared that goods were not meant for retail sale, revenue could not produce any evidence to contrary and hence, duty was rightly paid as per Section 4 of the Excise Act.
Shree Krishna Nylon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT MUMBAI] Refund claim cannot be denied when excess duty has been returned through debit/credit Notes, and, the said amount is accounted as ‘receivable’ in the Balance Sheet – sufficient evidence that incidence of duty has not been passed on.
Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – CESTAT, New Delhi, held that a plain reading of Rule 3 and Rule 7 of the Credit Rules clarifies that there would be no restriction if assessee avails Cenvat credit on procurement of inputs/input services prior to start of manufacture.
Principal Commissioner of Custom Vs. Riso India (P.) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Duty’ as defined in Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, is wide enough to cover all kinds of duty, including SAD. Hence, as per Section 3(8) of Customs Tariff Act
Dailmer Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT MUMBAI] When import of identical cars have been made at lower values which are comparable to the value declared at the time of filing Bill of Entry for sale of the cars imported under Carnet
Gupta Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar – Supreme Court held that price was genuinely revised & gets reduced by amending the MOA and there was nothing wrong on the part of the Appellant to declare the price in the BOE.
Challenger Computers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (Delhi High Court) In terms of the Section 51(a) of the DVAT Act, the selling dealer will issue the credit note to the buying dealer where the sales are subsequently reduced.
Zylog Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes- Where the smart cards are prepared in terms of an agreement with the customer by embedding requisite information, which couldn’t be sold in open market
