Liability of past Excise dues payable by old Company could neither be fastened nor be recovered from assessee when the assessee had only purchased assets of old Company, which was ordered to be wound up and had not taken over their running business- Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2015 (64) taxmann.com 20 (Allahabad)]
SC overruled the CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Maruti Suzuki case and held that pre-delivery inspection charges and after sales service charges are not to be included in assessable value- Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Vs. TVS Motors Company Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 874 – SUPREME COURT]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that when the Department has not invoked the provisions for imposition of penalties under relevant Section(s), therefore, the argument put forth by the Department for imposition of penalty under the Credit Rules is unsustainable.
Refund is allowable where Service tax is paid twice by the Appellant due to clerical error and the same is proved by supporting documents- Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2015 (12) TMI 884 – CESTAT NEW DELHI]
Rent-a-cab services provided to a unit located in SEZ for transportation of employees to and from their residences located outside SEZ, are eligible for exemption from Service tax- ORIX Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax [2015 (64) taxmann.com 21 (Mumbai – CESTAT)]
Where Service tax is not charged separately on pretext that services are not taxable, consideration so received has to regarded as cum-tax value and in event of demand, Service tax must be worked out accordingly- Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Vs. Bluechip Corporate Investment Centre Ltd.
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]
