No adjustment on account of a different assessable value adopted at Pipavav Port cannot be made in the refund amount as the import and clearance made at Pipavav Port is an independent clearance made by different Assessing Officers.
The charge of under valuation cannot be established without challenging the assessment made by the assessing group as per the procedure prescribed. It is not the case where the goods where being cleared on the basis of the declared value but were being cleared on the basis of the assessed value on the payment of assessed duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that allocation of area development charges by the State Government to the appellant to meet up its administrative expenses without performance of any service in exchange of the amount cannot be treated as consideration towards a service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that amount charged as freight and handling charges which are separately shown in the invoices cannot be included in the assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the Construction of Residential Complex under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) Scheme and construction of residential housing for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd. is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Kolkata held that central excise duty demand not sustainable as there was no under-valuation in the costing of the product i.e. footwear components.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that value of bought out items supplied along with manufactured goods cannot be included in the assessable value of the manufactured goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the product MIRACULAN which primarily contains Traicontanol 0.05% by weight is a product under the category of Insecticides and cannot be considered as the plant growth regulator.
Delhi High court held that in case there is supply or deemed supply of goods and rendering service, the same will fall within the ambit of works contract service regardless of whether or not VAT or service tax is payable.
CESTAT Chennai held that non-payment of service tax under GTA by assessee (Co-operative Society) was due to bonafide belief and there was no deliberate intention for not paying tax. Accordingly, extended period of limitation not invocable.
