It was held that for claiming the exemption of excise duty on ayurvedic product, there is no condition that the product to be sold exclusively in the name mentioned in the textbooks. The mention of the house name/ brand-name cannot lead to the conclusion that these products are not sold in the name specified in Ayurvedic text and accordingly exemption is applicable.
It was held that the activity of placing various food items, prepared by the appellants as well as various bought out readymade items, in a tray either at the time of placing the tray in the trolley or at the time of serving the passengers on board does not amount to manufacture of a new commodity as contemplated under section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly the excise duty cannot be demanded on the total value of manufactured and bought products placed in the tray.
CESTAT held that tobacco manufactured and packed in small pouches of 6-7 grams and again packed in a bigger packet are not subject to valuation based on retail price as the small pouches weighing less than 10 gms are exempt from requirement of fixation of retail sale price under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weight & Measurement Act.
The appellant has contended that the primary adjudication order claimed have to be sent by speed post was not received by it and when it received copy thereof, it filed the appeal within the prescribed period.
The CESTAT New Delhi in the above cited case held that procurement of duty free goods under notification no 43/2001 is subject to condition of the use of such goods in the manufacture or processing of goods to be exported.
CESTAT held that in case of increase in the number of operating packing machines in the factory during the month on account of addition or installation of packing machines, the differential duty amount, if any, shall be paid by the 5th day of the following month.
It was held that in case of mandap keeper service, the catering charges (cost of buffet dinners) was not entirely excludable from the assessable value and therefore the appellant was eligible only for the benefit of abatement of 40% as per Notification No.12/2001-ST, dated 20.12.2001.
It was held that service tax is not payable on the notional interest accrued on the security deposit received on providing immovable property on rent.
It was held that In case of amalgamation of companies appointed date as per Amalgamation Scheme is required to be taken as the date of amalgamation and not the date on which entire formalities were completed and the service provided by assessee from the appointed date to Amalgamating Company is to be considered as provided to self, in which case, no service tax liability would arise against them.
It was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, otherwise there would be no situation for which ordinary limitation period would apply.
