Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant M/s S.S. Engineers are engaged in the sale of own manufactured goods and also engaged in trading of bought out items which are used in erection, installation and commissioning of Sugar Plant and other goods falling under chapter 84 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Fees collected by the police department is in the nature of fee prescribed for performing statutory function, which has been deposited into the Govt. treasury. In the light of the C.B.E. & C. ‘s circular also, there can be no levy of service tax on such activities carried out by the police department.
Shri S.S. Gupta, Learned Chartered Accountant, appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the construction of hospital building does not fall under the ‘commercial or industrial construction service’ for the reason that the hospital building is not used for commerce or industry as the hospital in the present case is run by a charitable trust. For this reason also the charitable trust is not a business or commerce hence the construction thereof does not fall within the definition of commercial or industrial construction service
Diapers are commonly understood as thick soft paper or cloth that is fastened around a baby’s bottom/ between legs to absorb urine/ solid waste. Since, the goods in question were not made for fastening into the body, the same in our considered opinion should not be termed as baby and clinical diapers and should more appropriately fall under Chapter Sub-Heading of 48184090 which provides for other sanitary articles.
The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16/08/2017 of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. The appellant is managing hotels and restaurants. They were providing rooms for rent and also various food items, cakes, pastries, cookies, confectionary to the customers in their restaurants.
Aggregated limit of Rs. 1.5 crore in a Financial Year applies to the aggregate value of the clearances for all manufactures from a single factory premises. In the present case, the factory premises is found to be common where goods have been manufactured and cleared under the invoices of M/s Electro Industrial Sales Corporation, as well as M/s Numinous Supplies Pvt. Ltd. separately.
As the appellant is using the brand name of another person but it was by way of assignment deed. In that circumstances, the appellant is not using the brand name of another person but they are using their own brand name as assigned to them. In that circumstance, benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, we hold that appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
M/s Rastogi Furnishers & Decorators P. Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Delhi) Aaffixing the family name or brand name in the letter head does not amount to the use of brand name of third parties. In the instant case, there is no third party who owns the brand name of ‘Rastogi‘. The Department has neither issued […]
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances, vide which the demand of duty stands confirmed against M/s.Dadu Steel & Power Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 13,77,691/- along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. Further, penalty of Rs.5 lakhs stands imposed upon Shri Santosh Agarwal, Director of the manufacturing unit.
The crux of the dispute in the present case is whether such subsidy amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
