Advance received as an earnest money for which bank guarantee of equal amount is given to the customers, is more in the nature of a deposit and accordingly not liable to Service tax unless it is adjusted towards the consideration for services rendered- Thermax Instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – I [2015 (12) TMI 1222 – CESTAT MUMBAI]
It is held that mere reference to the power under Section 48A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act doesn’t empower the Department to attach the property of the Petitioner unless it is proved that husband had any right or interest in the property of the Petitioner.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relied upon the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mangalore [2009 (10) TMI 434 – CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Well Known Polyesters Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Vapi [2011 (1) TMI 664 – CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]
The Hon’ble Authority for Advance Rulings held that in the instant case, the Applicant charge the amount to its employees for use of the vehicles, which is equivalent to the rent amount paid to the car leasing company i.e. no extra amount is charged from employee.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)],held that rejecting the claim arbitrarily on the point of jurisdiction, is not correct
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there are two things which become apparent from the reading of the Order of the High Court that are: The duty for which the claim of refund is made, was paid under protest by the Respondent during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings; Further, the intermediary product was not marketable.
The Hon’ble High Court, Gujarat relying upon the Order addressed by the Department to Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on the same facts and judgment in the case of Ralli Engine Ltd. Vs. Union Of India [2004 (4) TMI 590 – Gujarat High Court], held that the Appellant is permitted to pay the Excise duty foregone from the legally availed Cenvat credit account.
Assessee cannot insist upon cross-examination of all the informers, especially the ones whose statement may not be relied upon by the Department for maintaining the demand- Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 2 Others [2015 (12) TMI 1206 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
MRP based valuation applicable to institutional buyers for goods which are specified under Section 4A of the Excise Act, covered by SWM Act, 1976 & Rules thereof and further, MRP was affixed on the goods supplied which are not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules thereof- Commr. of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1159 – SUPREME COURT]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)], which was further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2011 (3) TMI 1575 – SUPREME COURT]
