In the case of M/s SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation Vs. CCE, Raipur, it was held that merely because it had entered into four contracts for completing the scope of work would not take away from the fact that it was an operation of erection
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relied upon the decisions of Tribunal in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Mangalore [2009 (10) TMI 434 – CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Well Known Polyesters Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Vapi [2011 (1) TMI 664 – CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)],held that rejecting the claim arbitrarily on the point of jurisdiction, is not correct
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)], which was further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2011 (3) TMI 1575 – SUPREME COURT]
Transaction value of identical goods can be taken as assessable value of imported goods in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules only after making an adjustment of commercial and comparable effects- Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2015 (12) TMI 1043 (NEW DELHI – CESTAT)]
Refund is allowable where Service tax is paid twice by the Appellant due to clerical error and the same is proved by supporting documents- Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2015 (12) TMI 884 – CESTAT NEW DELHI]
In the instant case, Man Structural Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted final products. The Appellant has availed Cenvat credit on input/input services but was not maintaining separate accounts for inputs for manufacturing dutiable
Customs Notification 102/97 Dt.14.09.2007 permitted importers to claim refund of Special Additional Customs Duty (SACD) paid on the imported goods, provided such imported goods are sold in the domestic market on payment of VAT/Sales Tax.
The facts of the case are that assessee is a manufacturer of chocolates and coco products. During the course of the manufacturing final product certain floor spillage and sweeping arises which assessee is destroying.
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motorcycle and procures the service of advertising agency for the purpose of advertising their final product. They pay the value of the services to the advertising agency along with the amount of Service Tax leviable thereon.
