What had been manufactured and supplied by assessee was ‘concrete mix’, which was not dutiable. Revenue had not brought any facts on record in support of its allegation of manufacture of RMC by assessee. Therefore, ‘concrete mix’ manufactured by assessee was not dutiable under Central Excise Act.
CESTAT held that Nimbooz by 7 UP and Nimbus masala soda by 7 UP are classifiable under chapter heading 22029020 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is for category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks and thus M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
CESTAT held that when road construction is exempt, every activity related to the road construction is exempt including consulting engineer services, thus, the assessee providing consulting engineer services in the matter of road construction is entitled to get exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) of the Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated June 20, 2012
Exemption of excise duty could not be denied for mere taking credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods as if assessee was availing such Cenvat credit and such wrongly availed Cenvat credit could be recovered under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, recovery of an amount under Rule 6(3) was without the authority of law and hence demands could not be sustained under Rule 6(3) and need to be set aside.
-We find that the ‘Commercial training/ education/ coaching’ provided by the appellant imparts skills to the students/ trainees to enable them to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly upon completion of the course.
Brindavan Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Allahabad) We find that the appellant have actually entered into an agreement for manufacture on job work basis. Evidently, as per the agreement the job charges have been spread over in two tier billing i.e. fixed charges and variable charges. The reason being that in […]
Sporty Solutionz Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had acquired ‘Media / Broadcasting rights’ of various sporting events from M/s Taj TV Ltd., Mauritius, for broadcasting cricket matches between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (to be played outside India), in Bangladesh territory on […]
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) 1. Excise Appeal 70628 of 2019 has been filed by M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd1 to modify the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner, CGST(Appeals), Noida2, to the extent that interest should be granted @12% instead of @6%, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order […]
Kronos Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (Appeals) (CESTAT Allahabad) Appellant had taken a categorical stand that the debit was made on 05.03.2014, i.e. prior to filing of the refund claim. The Revenue is not disputing the said debit entry but is adopting a hyper technical view that such debit entry was reflected […]
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 […]
