The Department received an anonymous complainant indicating therein that during the period February 9, 1993 to September 27, 1995 about 3839.350 MT ordinary Portland cement was illegally sold which involved Excise Duty amounting to Rs.7,20,154/-, by using parallel documents like GP1s, invoices, challans , Bills, cash memo and GRs, etc.
In the instant case, General Export Enterprises (Appellant) had exported consignment of manmade fabrics. During the course of the investigation, the gram per square meter (GSM) values declared by the Appellant were found to be misdeclared but the goods were allowed to be exported
The Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that the Petitioner was granted a time period of 8 years to fulfil the export obligations. However, the Department had initiated the proceedings before the expiry of stipulated period of 8 years. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court held that initiation of proceedings in such a case was completely arbitrary and faulty.
The Cenvat Credit on plastic crates were used for safe transportation of finished goods is allowable even it is not being used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products CCE, Noida Vs. Denso India Ltd. & Another [2014 (9) TMI 635 – Allahabad High Court] Denso India Ltd. & Another (the Respondent) […]
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Vs. Mishal Zinc Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Indo Deutsh Metallo Chemique Ltd. [2014-TIOL1 725-CESTAT-MUM] The Respondents are manufacturer of White Zinc Oxide and having two units (a) Mishal Zinc Industries Pvt. Ltd (the Unit 1) and (b) Indo Deutsch Metallo Chimique Ltd (the Unit 2) [the Respondents]. Till August 1998, […]
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued an instruction F. No. 6/8/2014- CX.1 dated September 17, 2014 in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Super Synotex India Ltd. [2014-TIOL-19-SCCX] on the issue of abatement of Sales Tax under an abatement scheme where the Assesse has been allowed to […]
In the instant case, Essar Projects Ltd. (Essar) sold the entire business pertaining to their ‘Construction Division’ to Essar Construction (I) Ltd. (the New Company), w.e.f. June 30, 2006 as per ‘Business Transfer Agreement’. The Department contended that amount received by the New Company on account of the services rendered post June 30, 2006, though the entire Service tax liability pertaining to these services had already been discharged by Essar, the New Company is liable to pay Service tax on same. The Department issued Show Cause Notice to the New Company and the demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating authority.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, if consignor or consignee is one of the specified entities, then person liable to pay Service tax would be person liable to pay freight. Since consignor i.e. EOL was a factory as per Factories Act and a company under Companies Act, GTA service provider i.e., the Appellant was not liable to Service tax.
Refund of Service tax on services not provided cannot be denied on ground that same was not shown as ‘receivable’ in Balance Sheet Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 340 (New Delhi – CESTAT)] Radico Khaitan Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into an agreement with Diageo Radico Distrilleries Pvt. Ltd. […]
The Hon’ble High Court relied on the case of State of Gujarat Vs. M.M. Hazi Hasan [AIR 1967 SC 1885] and ordered the Revenue to hand over the exact quantity of the goods seized to the Petitioner as shown in the seizure list or pay equivalent money for the quantity of the seized goods at the present market rate to the Petitioner.
