CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of exemption Notification no. 102/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 for capital goods imported under Zero Duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme available as there is no simultaneous availment of benefit under Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS).
A ruling from the CESTAT Chennai holds that the manufacture of non-marketable sugar syrup is not subject to excise duty, setting a new precedent in tax law.
CESTAT Chennai held that the licence fee is includible in transaction value only when licence fee is paid as condition of sale. Accordingly, licence fee cannot be included to the transaction value when the same is not a condition of sale.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claim of Education Cess (EC) and Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC) on Oil Industry Development Cess (OID Cess) u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 duly available as proved that burden of OID cess is not passed on to the buyer.
CESTAT Chennai held that aluminium structures and fabricated items used as towers are integral part of Wind Turbines or Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) so as to be eligible for exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.
CESTAT Chennai held that the sharing services of their corporate staff with the group of companies is covered by the definition of ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency’ as defined in Section 65(105)(k) of FA, 1994 read with section 65(68) ibid.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand invoking extended period cannot be sustained on account of revenue-neutrality as duty charged by Unit-I would be taken as cenvat credit by Unit-II.
Learn about CESTAT’s recent ruling in the Aricent Technologies case, which validates the grant of CENVAT credit even when service-exporting premises are not registered under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
ead the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of Commissioner, Namakkal Municipality Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The case deals with the imposition of penalties and interest on service tax retrospectively. The CESTAT Chennai sets aside the interest and penalties, citing the retrospective amendment and the principle of non-ex post facto penalties.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty not payable as there is no contravention of Valuation Rules as an important part of the machine sold has been replaced with a less advanced component, slight reduction in the value of the machine sold is found to be normal.
