The CESTAT Chennai in the case of Ansaldo STS Transportation Systems India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai held that if the importer had entered into transaction with related persons and failed to prove that the price had not been influenced by the relationship
In the case of Sumit Wool Processors vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) it was held that it is a settled law that even a license obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts is only voidable and not void ab-initio. It is good in law until it is avoided.
The facts of the case are that assessee is a manufacturer of chocolates and coco products. During the course of the manufacturing final product certain floor spillage and sweeping arises which assessee is destroying.
The appellants manufacture excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the records, departmental officers noticed that during the period 10/09/2004 to 28/02/2005 appellant had received some amount towards job-work charges and processing charges.
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motorcycle and procures the service of advertising agency for the purpose of advertising their final product. They pay the value of the services to the advertising agency along with the amount of Service Tax leviable thereon.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Iwi Crogenic Vaporization System India held that The non-payment of recovered tax coupled with the fact of non-furnishing of the details in respect of unpaid part in periodical returns clearly establish the intention of assesse to evade the payment of service tax recovered. Therefore, in such a case penalty levied u/s 78 is sustainable in law.
The CESTAT New Delhi in the case of P&P Overseas held that the realization of export sale proceeds within a definite time-frame is not a pre-condition for claiming refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules , 2004 .
Whether the Assessee is required to file refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for refund of the amount deposited during investigation despite of the fact of appeal allowed in Assessee’s favour with consequential relief?
The appellant is an agent of Western Union on whose behalf appellant is disbursing money to the persons directed by Western Union who is located outside India. Revenue is of the view that as the service has been performed in India therefore, the service is received by Western Union in India.
The appellant challenged the charges particularly by showing various evidences of receipt of goods, Lorry Receipt, Purity Check report, Payment of Labour Bills and other details, which were not disputed by the lower authorities.
