Following the decision in Western Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2011 (22) STR 305 (Tri. LB), it may be held that the service of CHA being integrally connected with the export that cannot be disintegrated.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. Chandan Milk & Agro Products Pvt. LTD, it was held that the benefit of payment of penalty of 25% of tax liability cannot be extended if the assessee has not paid the amount of tax, interest and 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the receipt of the order.
In the case of M/s. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that the assessee can utilize accumulated Cenvat Credit to discharge the service tax liability towards GTA services prior to 01.03.2008. It was further held that the CENVAT credit cannot be utilised for discharging Service Tax on taxable services provided from outside India and received in India.
In the case of M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, New Delhi, it was held that the onus to prove that the assessee was providing any exempted services is on department before invoking Rule 6 and further it was held that only such intellectual property rights which are covered under Indian law in force alone are chargeable to service tax under IPR service.
In the case of Namrata Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, it was held that creating infrastructure, displaying the advertisement and collecting rent for such display will not fall under the activity of advertising agency.
In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection
It was held that a name or writing need not be a brand name or trade name in a sense it is normally understood. Even ordinary mark or letter is sufficient to indicate a connection between the product and the company.
It was held that that unless cost of advertising is recovered from the dealers mandatorily as a condition of dealership, the same cannot be added to the assessable value.
The appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods and were selling the products to various distributors and dealers. The appellants had agreement with some of the dealers and distributors in which they were sharing the cost of advertisement on optional basis.
In case of captive consumption, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 and if same goods are partly sold by the assessee then such goods should be assessed on the basis of transaction value and duty to be determined as per Section 4 for each removal.
