Commr. of Central Excise Vs Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. (CESTAT Kolkata) Appellant had entered into an agreement with TISCO for conversion of billets into wire rods for job of basis. After during the course of conversion, certain losses, such as burning losses occurred to the extent of 7%. Accordingly, appellants were required to […]
CESTAT held that transport charges cannot be included in valuation for mining services when transport activities been performed in mining area
Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited Vs Commissioner Of Customs Export (CESTAT Mumbai) On perusal of the date chart/list of events, as above, we find that as a sick company, the applicant was pursuing the matter before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985. Further, on examination of the case records, we […]
Held that power tillers and rotary tillers are self same goods. Accordingly benefit of concessional rate of basic customs duty of 2.5% under notification no. 12/2012- Customs dated 17.03.2012 is available on import of power tillers
Held that the Service tax is paid on the basis of the revenue realized towards the provision of the taxable services and not on the basis of the revenue recognition.
CESTAT Kolkata held that bona fide belief that goods manufactured and cleared were not subject to excise duty needs to be established. Duty demand is sustainable in case the bona fide belief is not established.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) Differential classification of same goods imported at different places would negate very purpose of Tariff Act CESTAT held that differential classification of the impugned goods imported at different places would negate the very purpose of the Tariff Act on the one hand and would cause avoidable […]
Held that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to follow the requirement of Section 9D of the Act regarding examination in chief of witness, therefore demand of service tax on the basis of statements of persons cannot be sustainable.
Since the job worker had carried out all the activities which, as per the department, amounted to manufacturing therefore, the job worker was alone to pay the excise duty.
Since the whole case of Revenue was based on the balance sheets of assessee who had declared all the transactions in their records and had even paid capital gains tax on the profit/compensation received, therefore, it could not be said that assessee had resorted to wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or had contravened of any of the provisions of service tax law with intent to evade payment of service tax.
