DCW Limited(“the Assessee”)was covered by Notification No. 96/2004-Customs dated September 17,2004passed in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 granting exemption of Basic Customs Duty subject to debit of the DEPB Licence.
In the instant case, A. Vairavel (the Assessee) used dyes and chemicals in execution of works contract of dyeing. The Department argued thatthe said transaction involvestransfer of property involved in the use of dyes and chemicals used in works contract of dyeing and hence assessable
The Revenue alleged that the exemption availed was wrong as the impugned goods were not classifiable under Chapter heading specified in the Exemption Notification. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the Appellant demanding differential Customs duty of Rs. 1,48,92,523/-.
Corrigendum is issued for the correction of error or omissions in the original document, which relates back to the date of initial authoring for the reason that correction means whatever written was not correct or there was some mistake which need be corrected.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai after considering the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 and relying upon the decision in the case of Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006 (204) ELT 403] held that since the toothpaste were supplied as ‘free sample’ and were not meant for retail sale, the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 would not apply at all and, therefore, the provisions of Section 4A of the Excise Act would also not apply.
Uttam Galva Steels Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacturing activity and the final products which were cleared on payment of duty included the products namely ‘H.R. Pickled Oils’ (Pickled Oils) and ‘HR Pickled and oiled coils’ (Pickled Coils).
CESTAT, Delhi held that detection of short payment by the officers prior to filing of ST-3 is a premature detection. The Appellant has given a plausible explanation of short payment by submitting that inasmuch as entries were not made in the computers and the data was yet to be entered, there was no mala fide on their part not to pay Service tax
The Government had constituted Tax Administration Reform Commission (the TARC) headed by Dr. Parthasarathi Shome, on August, 2013, to suggest core reforms to the tax administration set-up in the Country. The TARC has now submitted its Third Report dated December 2, 2014 called the “Third Report of the Tax Administration Reform Commission”. The said Report […]
In the instant case, Internet Computer Centre (the Appellant) availed the benefit of Small Scale Exemption under erstwhile Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated March 1, 2005 (SSI Notification) which was denied by the Lower Authorities on the ground that the services rendered
Kapoor Glass (I) Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) cleared the goods from the factory to their customers and recovered cost of insurance from them. In the lorry receipts, the freight was on to pay basis and the buyer of the goods were shown as the consignee.
