It was held that when the revenue proceeded to include the value of SEZ exports in computing the total turnover, the same should also have been included in computing export turnover and accordingly the value of export turnover should be equal to the total turnover and the value of SEZ exports should be included in the export turnover (numerator).
Once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity as there is no difference between the partner and the partnership firm.
The appellant were selling the sim cards to their franchisee and was paying sales tax to the State and activating the sim cards in the hands of subscribers at a valuable consideration and paying sales tax on the activation charges.
In the present case, duty paid items are MS Angles and Channels/Shelters which are brought to the site installed/erected and further put to use for mounting/installing telecommunication antenna and other equipment.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs DRP Malleables Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant Service is specifically covered under the scope of input service and the assessee is eligible for availing credit.
it was held that in order to prove clandestine removal of excisable goods, the department should take reasonable steps and provide correlated corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has made cladenstine removal of goods.
It was held that the Department cannot reject the certificate issued by the competent authority. In case the certificate was obtained by mis-representation or not presenting full facts the only option left to the department is to approach the competent authority with all the evidences to modify/cancel the certificate issued already.
It was held that the unjust enrichment can’t be proved by establishing the source of funds out of which the excise duty has been paid. Further it was held that in the case of State owned Undertakings which are funded, controlled and monitored by the State Government, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not arise.
It was held that CENVAT credit on various items used in the fabrication of capital goods can be availed. In the present case, the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the usage of different items in the installation of capital goods.
Tractors having engine capacity less than 1800 CC are not liable to such cess. Appellants are engaged in manufacture of both type of tractors and were using common inputs without maintaining separate accounts for receipt and consumption of these inputs. Invoking the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 proceedings were initiated against the appellant to recover 10% of value of the exempted tractors.
