Shravan Banarasilal Jejani (the Appellant) is the owner of the residential flats sold to them by the builder who paid Service tax on the residential flats. However, in terms of the Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated January 29, 2009 (the Circular), there was no Service tax liability on sale of the residential flats on the Appellant.
CA Bimal Jain The Union Budget, 2015 has proposed an increase in the rate of Service tax from 12.36% to flat 14% with abolishment of Education cess and Secondary & Higher Secondary Education cess. Further pursuing with Mr. Narendra Modi’s Dream of Swachh Bharat, a new Chapter VI has been inserted in the Finance Bill, 2015 […]
Publication of prospectus and making it available to students is ancillary activity to the main and predominant object to impart education and thus Institutions are not ‘dealer’ under VAT. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Banasthali Vidyapith [2015 (4) TMI 393 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]
In the instant case, Bhimli Unit of Alsa Marine And Harvests Ltd. (the Respondent) is a 100 % Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) engaged in the process of freezing and export of marine products as per the permission accorded by the Department of Industrial Development. The Respondent imported goods without payment of Customs duty and procured indigenous goods without payment of Central Excise duty seeking exemption under Notification No. 13/81 dated February 9, 1981
Redicura Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) is a manufacturer of P&P medicines chargeable to Central Excise duty. For the period April 1, 2003 to October 31, 2003 (impugned period), the Appellant was availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 9/03-CE dated March 1, 2003 (SSI Notification).
Since, the dispute arose as to whether the Respondent was entitled for concessional rate of duty or not, the Respondent paid normal rate of 15% ad valorem duty and sought for refund of the extra duty paid amounting to Rs. 27,66,970/-.
Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) is engaged in the export of ‘Medimix’ brand of Ayurvedic Toilet Soap, falling under CSH 3401.11.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Respondent filed a rebate claim on June 17, 2008 under Rule 18 of Excise Rules for refund of the duty paid for goods exported during the period July 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007
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
