Power Build Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Warranty Service which implies that the value is already included in the sale price of the goods. Moreover, there is no requirement in the definition of Input Service that the value is to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of Central Excise […]
There is no contract of commission agent service with any of the commission agent, there is no person to whom payment of commission was made therefore, it is clear that no service provider i.e. foreign commission agent exists in the present case.
The issue under consideration is whether the Calcite Sand (Calcite Powder) is classifiable under CT 2503 9030 as mineral product or required to be classified under CTH 2836 5000 as a chemical?
Shiroki Auto Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that the child parts imported by the appellant are classifiable under Tariff Item 9401 90 00 as parts of vehicle seats as declared by the importer-assessee and not under Tariff Item 8708 99 00 as parts […]
M/s. Sem Construction Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had been awarded a contract under agreement dated 01.04.2011 by M/s. Archelean Chemical Private Limited at Rann of Kutch for job of “metal spreading for supply uncourse black Trap Rubble stone” and its spreading/dressing along the outer […]
whether the commissioner is correct in denying the benefit of SEZ unit on the basis that the registered office is situated in DTA i.e. outside the SEZ?
The issue under consideration is whether it is correct to reject the refund on the basis that the registration number of appellant not mention in invoice?
Sunland Alloys Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether the DGOV guidelines are over and above Customs Valuation Rules? In the present case, the appellant imported Aluminium Scrap under various Bill of Entries and the price declared in the Bill of Entry is as per the invoice of the foreign supplier. The […]
Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Demand of Rs. 39,60,634/- was confirmed on the ground that same was wrongly availed on ISD invoices issued by the appellant’s Ahmedabad and Mumbai branch for services availed prior to the date of ISD registration was granted for the said unit. We find […]
CESTAT are of the clear view that merely based on DGOV circular also, value cannot be enhanced which is without authority of law. It is clearly held that DGOV circular cannot override the provisions of Valuation Rules.
