Decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ASR Multimetals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is correct and the appellant is required to deposit separately 10% of the amount of the duty confirmed/ penalty imposed, for preferring of appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).
These two appeals are against impugned orders, both dated 01/07/2010, passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi. The appellant is an institution created by an Act of Parliament – The Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (EPMF & MP Act).
In as much as the brand name owner M/s Hindustan Machines has been held to be entitled to the benefit of Notification, the other units using the said brand name would become entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification as they are not hit by para 7 of the Notification.
Ms Society of Indian Automobile Vs CST (CESTAT Delhi) So far as demand of service tax on sale of statistical data (statistical service subscription) is concerned we find that the appellant provide various kind of data pertaining to automobile industry after collecting the same from various sources. This data is available to members as well […]
They were availing Cenvat credit of education cess paid on the inputs used by them in the manufacture of tractors. The tractors manufactured by the appellants are exempted from payment of excise duty vide Notification No. 23/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004.
In the present case, duty paid items are MS Angles and Channels/Shelters which are brought to the site installed/erected and further put to use for mounting/installing telecommunication antenna and other equipment.
it was held that in order to prove clandestine removal of excisable goods, the department should take reasonable steps and provide correlated corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has made cladenstine removal of goods.
It was held that the Department cannot reject the certificate issued by the competent authority. In case the certificate was obtained by mis-representation or not presenting full facts the only option left to the department is to approach the competent authority with all the evidences to modify/cancel the certificate issued already.
It was held that the unjust enrichment can’t be proved by establishing the source of funds out of which the excise duty has been paid. Further it was held that in the case of State owned Undertakings which are funded, controlled and monitored by the State Government, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not arise.
It was held that CENVAT credit on various items used in the fabrication of capital goods can be availed. In the present case, the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the usage of different items in the installation of capital goods.
