Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the plethora of judgments and by observing various provisions in this regard, held that in the instant case, buyer has borne risk of damage to goods during transit and freight charges were an integral part of price of goods sold by the Respondent to its buyers.
CESTAT, Allahabad relying upon plethora of judicial pronouncements held that in the instant case, BSNL has already paid Service tax on the SIM cards and recharge coupons sold to the Appellant and therefore, again demanding Service tax from the Appellant would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible in law.
CESTAT, Mumbai held that when freight charges are to the buyer’s account, merely because these are not mentioned separately is no reason to conclude that sale is not complete at the factory gate. Further, transport charges recovered from buyer through debit notes cannot be a ground for denying substantial benefit under the law laid down in Section 4 of the Excise Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act as was prevalent during the relevant period, the value of the goods which are imported was to be fixed at the price on which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale.
The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that as long as the chillies were transferred from Secunderabad branch to Cochin branch, which had been exported and the conditions enumerated in Section 5(1) of the CST Act are satisfied
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras relied upon the decision in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Chennai and another [(2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad)] and held that when the fact of Petitioner paying the taxes to his supplier is not under dispute, the Petitioner cannot be compelled to reverse the input tax Credit due to non-payment of VAT liability by the selling dealer.
CESTAT, Allahabad held that the intimation to Revenue is required only in the case of loss or destruction of goods by natural cause or accident. However, in the instant case, there was no such accident.
CESTAT, Delhi has relied upon the plethora of judgments and held that merely on the basis of papers/records seized allegedly containing the production & dispatch or statement of any employee/director of the Appellant accepting the facts would not suffice to conclude that the Appellant has removed the goods without payment of duty, in absence of any corroborative evidence.
Essar Oil Ltd. (the Respondent) has availed Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on various services, such as ‘Rent-a-Cab’, ‘Tour Operators’, and ‘Travel Agent’ hired by them (the Impugned input services) which were used by their employees for their movement within the refinery premises or for outward travelling in connection with business.
When proceedings against manufacturer stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and penalty, no penalty would be imposable under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules on other persons like traders
