When proceedings against manufacturer stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and penalty, no penalty would be imposable under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules on other persons like traders
Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering every aspect of the issue examined by the Tribunal has observed that the price of motorcycle manufactured by the Respondent were market driven and the Respondent did not follow cost of production plus reasonable profit pricing policy.
Rico Gems Corporation and others (“the Appellants”) imported certain goods which were thereafter sold to Telebrand India Pvt. Ltd., whRico Gems Corporation and others (“the Appellants”) imported certain goods which were thereafter sold to Telebrand India Pvt. Ltd., who is engaged in business of selling of goods through telemarketing.
Supreme Court held that the demurrage charges are paid after the goods reached at Indian ports and therefore, it is post-importation event and cannot form part of transaction value. Thus, the Respondent isn’t liable to pay Customs duty on these demurrage charges.
CESTAT, Mumbai held that the provision of unjust enrichment wouldn’t be applicable as the excess amount paid by mistake was in the nature of deposit and not duty. It was further held that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate produced by the Appellant showing excess paid interest not passed on
In a tri-partite construction business model, there are 3 parties involved viz. the land owner, the builder/developer and the contractor.Typically, in such a model, the land owner enters into an agreement with the builder,whereby, the land owner gives either land/development rights (to construct/develop a residential complex and sell flats/houses of such complex to buyers) to the builder.
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.
