In the instant case, Sanjay Industrial Corporation (the Appellant) was engaged in profile cutting viz. cutting larger size plates into small size and shapes using gas cutting machines, as per requirements of customers. The Department invoked extended period of limitation alleging that the process carried out by Appellant amount to manufacture and thus exigible to Excise duty.
In the Instant case, the Department alleged undervaluation and clandestine clearances on ground that Synfab Sales (the Respondent) was clearing the goods from its factory gate at very low value in the name of non-existing firms, while the goods were actually being cleared to godown at Bhiwandi (Maharashtra) and Surat (Gujarat) from where they are subsequently being sold through brokers to actual buyers at a higher value.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that an Order which has been passed on a concession given by the Commissioner cannot be challenged by the Commissioner himself. Further, the argument of intermediary service when not raised before AAR cannot be raised first time in Writ petition,especially, when the same is a ground relatable to facts
In the instant case, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed Swift Talk (the Appellant) to deposit Rs. 3 Lakhs as pre-deposit for hearing the case on merit by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).The Appellant argued that the Hon’ble Tribunal has adopted discriminatory approach in respect of same controversy and vide its earlier decisions in case of other dealers
In instant case, Monarch Catalyst (P) Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in export of goods and for that purpose availing services of certain commission agents located abroad(Impugned services) on which Service tax paid under Reverse Charge. Accordingly the Appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated July 7, 2009.
Notification No. 32/2015-Central Excise Dated- 4th June, 2015 Ethanol produced from molasses generated from cane crushed in the sugar season 2015-16 i.e. 1st October, 2015 onwards, for supply to the public sector oil marketing companies, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. or Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., for the purposes of blending with petrol.
We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. [(2015) 57 taxmann.com 363 (SC)]on the following issue
Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST Dated the 3rd June, 2015 It is further clarified that exemption from service tax still continues to services provided in relation to serving of food or beverages by a restaurant, eating joint or a mess, other than those having the facility of air-conditioning or central air-heating in any part of the establishment, at any time during the year.
Whether the conditions of export of services under the erstwhile Export of Service Rules, 2005 is satisfied when the payment was received in Indian Rupees through a Foreign Bank, who have issued Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate?
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is clear that by letter dated April 15, 2002, the original purchase order dated October 31, 2001 was novated insofar as price was concerned, which is before the date of removal of goods from the factory premises in May, 2002. Since duty has been paid on the basis of the original price in the purchase order, the difference between the said rate and the reduced rate has to be refunded.
