The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)],held that rejecting the claim arbitrarily on the point of jurisdiction, is not correct
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)], which was further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2011 (3) TMI 1575 – SUPREME COURT]
Transaction value of identical goods can be taken as assessable value of imported goods in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules only after making an adjustment of commercial and comparable effects- Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2015 (12) TMI 1043 (NEW DELHI – CESTAT)]
Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai held that the charges of technical knowhow cannot be included in the value of imported goods in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules where these expenses aren’t condition to sale of the imported goods.
Input services not only cover services of falling in the substantial part of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but also cover services which are covered under the inclusive part as the same having some sort of nexus with the business activity of the assesses.
The appellants are Export Oriented Unit (EOU). In 2003 they cleared the certain consignments of fabrics for purpose of export, which got damaged due to rain and had to be brought back to the factory.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Precision Metals vs. CCEx held that as per the special procedure prescribed in Notification no. 214/86 job worker can get duty exemption in respect of job worked goods cleared to principal manufacturer but this exemption donot make the goods as exempt from duty because ultimately duty got paid at the principal manufacturer send
It was held that when goods are cleared to the customers at a discount, the assessable value for the purpose of assessment should be the value arrived at after giving the quantity discount and not the value at which the goods were cleared from factory to depot.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that when there is no allegation regarding fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of fact which are required as per Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act , then imposition of penalty by the department is wrong and illegal.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCExheld that as per Rule 11(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification 23/2004-CE, the amount of credit earned by the manufacturer under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which existed prior to 10.9.2004, can be utilized by them as per transitional rule 11 of the new Cenvat credit rules,2004.
