Pushpak Steels Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was manufacturer of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant purchased an Electric Motor (impugned Capital Goods) from Crompton Greeves Ltd.under an invoice No. 357 dated January 9, 2003 on payment of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,32,280/-.
During the course of audit it was revealed that Krishna Cylinders (Assessee)has not paid Service tax during the period from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 on outward Goods Transportation services. However, on being pointed out by the audit team, the Assessee paid the entire amount of Service tax along with applicable interest.
In the instant case, JP. Kenny Ltd. (the Appellant)availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 6,48,208/- on the invoices received prior to their Service tax registration and also availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 47,182/- on Housekeeping and Hotel services charges paid by them.
In the instant case, Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (the Appellant) provided ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction service’ and ‘Construction of Complex service’ and availed the benefit of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated March 1, 2006 (the Abatement Notification) claiming abatement of 67%. Further, while availing of the Composition Scheme to pay Service tax under the Works
During the Departmental investigations, it was found that the Appellant had entered into the Service Agreement namely “Programme Acquisition and Service Agreement” and the Distribution Agreement with MSM Satellite Singapore Pvt. Ltd. (Foreign Entity).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
