Follow Us:

Where duty is mistakenly paid in excess, Assessee is entitled to refund

February 3, 2015 2431 Views 0 comment Print

Cipla Ltd.(the Appellant)imported Fermoterol Fumarate and filed a Bill of Entry dated March 31, 2010 for home consumption. The Appellant paid excess CVD at 10% instead of effective rate of 4% in terms of unconditional exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated March 1, 2006 (the Notification) and therefore filed a refund claim Rs. 1,33,779/- towards the excess paid duty.

Cenvat Credit to HO Registered as ISD cannot be denied for invoices in Branch Office name

February 3, 2015 3691 Views 1 comment Print

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Headings 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant availed Cenvat credit on inputs as well as input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products.

Declared value of Imported goods cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data

February 3, 2015 2799 Views 0 comment Print

Since there was no evidence of higher value of contemporaneous import from same sources and no allegation of mis-declaration of impugned goods, declared value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data. In the present case, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules cannot be invoked.

Cenvat Credit on erection & installation of machines by Manufacturer

February 3, 2015 4144 Views 0 comment Print

Hercules Hoists Ltd. (the Appellant) was a manufacturer of machinery and parts thereof which were cleared on payment of Excise duty. The Appellant had also taken the responsibility of installing the machinery at the customer’s premises.

In case of inter-unit 'stock transfer' of intermediate goods, doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply

February 3, 2015 4262 Views 0 comment Print

When the clearances were not on sale but were purely on stock transfer basis, there is no question of Satnoor unit having recovered the incidence of duty from Abu Road unit and, as such, the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply.

Bank a/c cannot be freezed after mandatory pre-deposit payment

February 3, 2015 2491 Views 0 comment Print

In the instant case, an Order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Goa confirming Service tax liability on Kala Mines and Minerals (the Appellant). Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai by making a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service tax demand confirmed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act).

Service tax on services provided by clubs to its members?

February 3, 2015 14004 Views 3 comments Print

In the instant case, the three Appellants namely Matunga Gymkhana, Tahnee Heights Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. and Mittal Tower Premises Co-Operative Society (the Appellants) were running a club for their members.

Input Service Distributor need not be a ‘manufacturer’ or ‘output service provider’ for availing Cenvat credit

February 3, 2015 1111 Views 0 comment Print

Moser Baer India Ltd.(the Appellant) is the manufacturer of CDR, CD Rom, DVDR and DVD Rom, falling under Chapter Heading 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, at their factory situated at Noida. The Head Office of the Appellant, located at Okhla, Delhi is registered as an Input Service Distributer (ISD) in terms of Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules).

Services of identifying prospective customers in India qualify as export of services

February 3, 2015 1462 Views 0 comment Print

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was rendering Customer care services to the customers of CDMA mobile phone in India on behalf of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Korea (Samsung Korea).

Providing men & materials for laying concrete mixture is ‘Works Contract’ & not ‘Sale’

January 29, 2015 3854 Views 0 comment Print

The Appellant is a manufacturer of ready mix cement concrete and also provides men and materials to lay concrete mixture on area specified by purchaser. For the Assessment Year 2003-04, the Appellant claimed exemption treating the transaction as a Works contract under Notification G. O. Ms. No. 50/90/F6, dated December 10, 1990.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031