Subic Innovative Plastics (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) had taken Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development (R&D) and Quality Control Laboratory situated in the factory premises.
Refund is allowable where Service tax is paid twice by the Appellant due to clerical error and the same is proved by supporting documents- Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2015 (12) TMI 884 – CESTAT NEW DELHI]
In the instant case, Man Structural Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted final products. The Appellant has availed Cenvat credit on input/input services but was not maintaining separate accounts for inputs for manufacturing dutiable
Customs Notification 102/97 Dt.14.09.2007 permitted importers to claim refund of Special Additional Customs Duty (SACD) paid on the imported goods, provided such imported goods are sold in the domestic market on payment of VAT/Sales Tax.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Quippo Energy Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST held that the activities carried on by the assessee on imported gensets results into existence of a more functional & operational product catering the needs of industrial consumers
In the case of Bank of Baroda VS Commissioner of Service Tax it was held that the service of transmission and exchange of financial messages falls under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services and service tax should be levied accordingly
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.
