On the one hand the Revenue has made demand of central excise duty on goods consumed in the finished goods and on the other hand it is demanding duty on the finished goods which is wrong. Even if there is any duty demand, the same shall be restricted only upon finished goods. The raw material duty cannot be demanded as the same were consumed for intended purpose of manufacture.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Parts of Drier/ parboiling parts namely Heat Exchanges, Drier Fan and Aluminium Fin Tubes are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8437 and attracted NIL rate till Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX dated 19.05.2010 got rescinded.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that goods imported are classifiable under tariff heading 27101290 which are allowed to be imported only through State Trading Enterprises (STE), as per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) condition 5 of chapter 27. Redemption fine and penalty justified as condition of the policy for importing goods not satisfied.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that single invisible contract involving supply of raw material and construction activity is classified under works contract hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. However, in case of divisible works contract clearly defining value of service portion and raw material is classifiable under ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’ prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in terms of rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, the abatement of duty deposited in advance is available in respect of one of the machines of the manufacturer which was not engaged in the manufacture of notified goods i.e. branded and unmanufactured tobacco without lime tube for continuous period of 15 or more days.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of segregation can be allowed only if the imported scrap contained impurities like iron, rubber, plastic, steel etc.
Analysis of C.C. Ahmedabad vs Smaltochimia India Pvt Ltd case involving customs duty classification dispute for ‘Twin Vision Scanner’ and related equipment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that CENVAT credit of excise duty is allowable even when 5% of the value of exempted goods is reversed, complying with Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty on mediator acting as a broker in dealing with trading of advance licence which was forged or obtained fraudulently unjustified as it is not established that he was aware about forged/ fake nature of licence.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that services received outside SEZ are eligible for a refund of Service Tax under Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/2009-ST dated 25.05.2009, in Zydus Hospira Oncology case.
