T.M. Tyres Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Butyl rubber inner tubes and such product by itself is separately identifiable and is a distinct Marketable product. It cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant […]
ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) In view of the above, we find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amount of cenvat credit which needs to be disallowed, the interest thereon and the appropriate penalty as follows: (i) while computing the […]
The short point to be decided is whether the consignment MFD copiers imported prior to 05.06.2012 when the restriction was imposed upon them are liable to confiscation under section 111(d) for violation of Foreign Trade Policy.
Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Exemption notification No. 41/2007-ST, we find that this notification exempts services which are used for export of goods. The words used are NOT “used in relation to export of goods”. In this case, GTA services were availed for transporting goods […]
Observing that the definition of DTA under SEZ Act includes everything located outside SEZs, CESTAT Hyderabad has held that 100% EOU located outside SEZ, constitutes DTA as far as SEZ Act is concerned. It also observed that Section 51 of the SEZ Act makes it clear that this Act prevails over any other law. The Tribunal held that the appellant (EOU) is entitled to refund of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Rule 5 in respect of the goods which they had sold to SEZ units. CESTAT Chennai Order in case of Orbis India (P) Ltd. was relied on.
Vishwanath Projects Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Evidently, from a bare perusal of the contract, it is evident that the purpose of the contract is for providing floodlighting along the Indo Bangladesh Border in the State of Tripura and NOT for transmission and distribution of electricity. Merely because electricity is used in […]
The motor vehicles need not be used exclusively for providing cargo handling or other listed services. The mere fact that they have also used motor vehicles for some other purposes does not deprive them of their CENVAT Credit on motor vehicles.
The sale of goods was not a high sea sales which was affected after clearing from the Customs. Otherwise, NTPC, the buyer would have filed the Bill of Entry and cleared the goods. The mere fact that the bids for import were finalised by the respondent (MMTC) after approval of NTPC, would not change the nature of transaction.
M/s Nava Bharat Agro Products Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The main issue to be adjudicated is whether palm oil fruit is a fruit entitled for the exemption of Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. Apparently, notification is silent about any definition or the classification of fruit and all […]
Oil India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Refund jurisdiction of the Officers of Central Excise and Service Tax emanates from Section 12E and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The powers of the first appellate authority to decide appeals or such decisions emanates […]
