Department cannot raise same grounds in the second round of ligation when the grounds taken in the first round of litigation were disposed of and no appeal was filed against the Order pertaining to first litigation
The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat relying upon the decision in case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)], allowed the appeal in favour of the Respondent and held that where all the relevant facts were in the knowledge of authorities when first SCN was issued, while issuing second and third SCN’s on same and similar facts and on the basis of same inspection made on September 16, 1996, Department cannot allege suppression of facts by Respondent.
The nearest time in terms of Rule 7 of Excise Valuation Rules, could be the time subsequent to the time and date of clearance/removal of the goods under assessment from the factory to depots when the transaction value at or about the same time is not available
Mumbai Customs House has no jurisdiction to raise demand alleging mis-declaration of imported goods, when the goods were imported at Chennai port and Customs Authorities at Chennai had cleared goods holding that the description of the goods has not been mis-declared.
The dominant purpose of medical treatment is medical services and integral to such a service is a medical procedure that involves administering medicines and drugs and may involve, implants, stents etc., as integral to a successfully medical treatment/ procedure.
Input tax credit availed by the petitioner could not be denied and there is no need to reverse the input tax credit availed by the purchaser of the goods on the grounds that the selling dealer has not filed returns or not paid taxes or they were unregistered dealers or their registrations were retrospectively cancelled.
Government has exempted the Capital goods specified in the First schedule and Second Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, when cleared against a Status Holder Incentive Scheme duty credit scrip issued to a Status Holder by the Regional Authority in accordance with paragraph 3.16 of the Foreign Trade Policy from:
Tribunal and held that since amendment to the Service Tax Rules have come into effect on August 16, 2002 and it is only by way of amendment the liability of service recipient to pay Service tax on the Impugned Service arises otherwise there was no liability on the Respondent to pay Service tax during the period under dispute. Since the Respondent was not liable to pay Service tax, the Respondent is also not liable to pay Interest as well as penalty.
The nature and character of the amendment decides whether an amendment made is declaratory or clarificatory and accordingly whether retrospective or not. A declaratory law is always prospective while clarificatory law is retrospective in nature;
Service elements in a composite Works contract (involving transfer of property in goods and rendition of services), where such services are classifiable under CICS, COCS and ECIS are subject to levy of Service tax even prior to insertion of taxable service ‘Works Contract’ under Section 65(105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act i.e. prior to June 1, 2007.
