The appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods and were selling the products to various distributors and dealers. The appellants had agreement with some of the dealers and distributors in which they were sharing the cost of advertisement on optional basis.
In case of captive consumption, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 and if same goods are partly sold by the assessee then such goods should be assessed on the basis of transaction value and duty to be determined as per Section 4 for each removal.
It was held that when the assessee has provided the required documents for justifying that the incidence of tax has not been passed on, it is for the department to show by adducing some material that the incidence of tax has been passed on.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Vipul-S Plasticrafts P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise held that when the rule under which duty is sought to be demanded itself has been struck down as unconstitutional by various High Courts, the show-cause notice which are based upon rule 8(3A) cannot survive and are liable to be set aside.
for the purpose of classification of fertilisers, it is important to see where the products consists of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium as laid down in the explanatory notes, it should be classified as fertilizers.
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi Vs M/S Bajaj Motors, it was held that the outdoor catering service provided has not been used for the personal use or consumption of the employee and the said service has been provided by the employer to its employees for preserving proper working atmosphere in the factory for enhancing the productivity.
In Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. – 1997 (94) E.L.T. 16, the Supreme Court held that service and maintenance charges in respect of tonners/cylinders which are durable and returnable cannot be added to the assessable value of the chlorine manufactured by the assesses and supplied to the customers in tonners/cylinders
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Aarti Industries Ltd. vs. CCEx, Thane held that wrong availment of Cenvat credit cannot be said to a willful attempt of suppression with the intent to evade the payment of duty when the matter has been interpreted in different manner by different tribunals and courts.
Advance received as an earnest money for which bank guarantee of equal amount is given to the customers, is more in the nature of a deposit and accordingly not liable to Service tax unless it is adjusted towards the consideration for services rendered- Thermax Instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – I [2015 (12) TMI 1222 – CESTAT MUMBAI]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relied upon the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mangalore [2009 (10) TMI 434 – CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Well Known Polyesters Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Vapi [2011 (1) TMI 664 – CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]
