CESTAT Delhi has held that mere cabling of various parts of agricultural machine (laser level transmitter, laser receivers, control boxes connecting cables and rechargeable battery packs) so as to let them function as a complete machine does not amount to manufacture and hence benefit of Sl. No. 399(A) of Not No. 12/2012-Cus. cannot be denied.
t is apparently clear that appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and not supplied manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver and and the same cannot be treated as Manpower, recruitment or Supply Services.
M/s Jubilant Life Science Limited Vs Additional Director General (Adj) (CESTAT Delhi) Following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Tata Steel v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 7917 of 2009],wherein the Explanation to Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, […]
CESTAT Chennai has held that late fee imposed on the appellant for delay in filing of Bill of Entry was not proper, since the delay had occurred only because the original importer had failed to clear the goods.
claim of refund was denied on the ground that the duty payment challans were not been produced. CESTAT Ahmedabad however observed that the amount had been deposited, received by the department through banker’s cheque and had also been realized, and that no challan was taken by the assessee. It was held that even in the absence of challan, where such payment has been made correctly, the assessee was entitled for refund.
Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various Computer Stationeries, LIC Forms, Bank Statement Forms as per the requirement of LIC, Banks & Govt department as per the requirements of LIC, Bank and Government department, falling under chapter sub heading 482040 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and paying duty accordingly.
The issue under consideration is whether the service tax under RCM will be levied on deputed employees working under control, direction and supervision of overseas companies?
The sale of goods was not a high sea sales which was affected after clearing from the Customs. Otherwise, NTPC, the buyer would have filed the Bill of Entry and cleared the goods. The mere fact that the bids for import were finalised by the respondent (MMTC) after approval of NTPC, would not change the nature of transaction.
M/s. Voith Turbo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT Explains when Substantial mark-up in supply of imported goods to customers when not indicates undervaluation of imports Considering the nature of business of the appellant/importer and that the overheads involved in the business activity were bound to influence the price at which the […]
Nayara Energy Ltd. Vs C.C. Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT Ahmedabad has had held that the catalyst ‘Petromax- MD’, consumed in the final product and not required for setting up of the plant or required for running, repair and maintenance of the plant, was not eligible for the benefit of exemption which provided that the goods […]
