Additional amount received as reimbursement towards third party inspection charges undertaken at the instance of the buyer is not includable in the assessable value- Central Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2015 (12) TMI 256 – CESTAT MUMBAI]
Krishan Kumar (the Petitioner) is at present non-working director of Spectec Building Products Pvt. Ltd. (the Company). The Department has alleged that the Company was indulging in clandestine removal and undervaluation of goods manufactured by it and thereby
Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Ltd (the Respondent) being a 100% EOU made DTA sales by supplying goods to the EPCG licence holder, DTA sales. In terms of the Section 3 of Excise Act, such sales were liable for the payment of Excise duty equal to the amount of Customs duty leviable in terms of Section 12 of the Custom Act
Sanctioning of 4% of SAD refunds by way of re-credit in the respective licenses after June 30, 2013 is proper – A right given under an Exemption Notification cannot be taken away by issue of the Departmental Circulars- Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Vs. M.B. Enterprise [2015 (12) TMI 578 – CESTAT Ahmedabad]
The Department is not allowed to raise new grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, which were not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals)-CC (Sea-Imp.), Chennai Vs. Kwang Sung Brake India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 585 – CESTAT Chennai]
Where assessee was engaged in development and sale of software etc., activities of Business Consultancy services and Software Implementation services, which have been subject to Service tax, cannot be considered as ‘sale
Transaction would be Inter-state sales where movement of goods is from one State to another in terms of purchase order, even if goods are supplied to common godown of buyer and seller- State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Annamalaiar Mills Ltd. [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 234 (Madras)]
Where assessee was allowed partial exemption from CST in terms of Exemption Notification, reopening of assessments on plea that full CST was collected from customers is not justified- J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 233 (Rajasthan)]
It came to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC or the Board) that certain field formations are taking a view that Service tax is payable on services received by the apparel exporters from third party undertaking job work on the premise that the services received by apparel exporters is of manpower supply service, which neither falls under the Negative list nor is specifically exempt. However, trade is of the view that the such services are of job work involving a process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, and thus would fall under the Negative list of services given under Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) and hence would not attract Service tax.
1. (1) These rules may be called the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2015.— (2) They shall come into force on 1st January 2016. 2. In the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, after rule 52A, the following rule shall be added namely :‑
