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.
The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No.26/2017 dated 28.09.2017. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement and clinker falling under chapter heading 2523 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Central Excise duty on the cement sold by the appellant was mostly discharged on MRP basis under Section 4A and partly by payment of Central Excise Duty on Transaction Value at Adv
The input service credit on insurance is denied on the ground that these insurance has been taken for the family members of the employees which is in nature of perquisites. I do agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority as the insurance of family members of the employees has no concern with the business of manufacturing of the appellant.
Arihant Udyog Vs Arihant Udyog (CESTAT Mumbai) As per the activity the appellant is only carrying out affixation of brand on the tools i.e. spanner by embossing/ engraving. This process alone does not amount to manufacture. As regards other processes which are carried out by the job workers, it prima facie appears that the independent […]
Consideration received by the respondent is towards sale of Developmental Rights to the land and cannot be considered as commission for real estates agents services.
The dispute in the present appeal is relating to their liability to pay Service Tax on Passenger Service Fees (PSF) and other taxes (international taxes) collected by the airlines as part of consideration when the tickets are issued to the passengers.
