C K P Mandal (the Appellant) is a Charitable Trust. It has two halls which are given on hire for various functions. On hire charges, the Appellant was paying Service tax under the category of Mandap keeper. The Appellant also received donations from caterers and decorators for permitting them to use the halls.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner was never put to notice before March 1, 2013;
The sub-clause (v) of Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) providing the definition of ‘Banking and Other Financial services’ was amended vide the Finance Act, 2007 (effective from June 1, 2007) by deletion of the expression ‘but does not include cash management’.
Nilkamal Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and for the manufacture of these goods, they had purchased some moulds as Capital Goods. Upon receipt of the said moulds in the factory, the Appellant availed 50% of the eligible Cenvat credit on the moulds as Capital Goods and the moulds were put to use for some time in the factory for further manufacturing of excisable goods.
Epson India Pvt. Ltd.(the Assessee) imported Inkjet printer with printer software and ink cartridges (impugned goods) under a single Bill of Entry No. 618553 dated April 21, 2004 by classifying them under separate chapter headings and claimed concessional rate of duty
Navshiv Retails Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) imported branded mobile phones (impugned goods) for which Customs clearance was sought. During examination, it was found by the Department that International Mobile Equipment Identification (IMEI) number of impugned goods
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Nelco Ltd. [(2002) 144 E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)] which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [(2002) 144 E.L.T. A104 (S.C.)], holding that in case of remand matter, the Department was not entitled to hold on to the amount deposited by the Assessee during the course of investigation as pre-deposit.
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (the Appellant) was the job worker of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd (Glaxo) and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid by Glaxo, the Principal manufacturer. The Appellant was clearing their final product manufactured on job work basis on payment of duty by utilizing Cenvat credit availed by them.
Where two Exemption Notifications, one granting absolute unconditional exemption and other granting unconditional partial exemption, is available to the Assessee, the Assessee has an option to opt the Exemption Notification which is more beneficial to him.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (the Board) vide Circular No.993/17/2014-CX dated January 5, 2015 has issued a clarification on the matter of mandatory pre-deposit of duty and penalty for filing an appeal as was specified in Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated September 16, 2014.
