CESTAT Hyderabad in case of Regency Ceramics Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Puducherry examines applicability of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and benefit of remission for goods lost due to fire or arson.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that the Appellant is eligible to take the cenvat credit on the invoices raised by various car dealers, distributors for the services provided by them as payment of service tax by such dealers/ distributors not disputed.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that amount of incentive received by the Advertising Agency from the print media cannot levied to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
CESTAT Hyderabad held that the services provided to fulfil warranty obligation would be eligible as input services being a service in relation to manufacture. Further, also the warranty charges were included in the assessable value of goods sold to the customers.
In the case between Pelican Rubber Ltd and Commissioner of Customs, CESTAT Hyderabad asserts that a CA Certificate is insufficient to prove the incidence of duty, directing a remand to the Original Authority for re-examination.
Held that the Hyderabad office is not required to act as an input service distributor (ISD) as there is no head office-branch office basis relation between the Hyderabad office and other offices. Accordingly procedure under Rule 4A of the Services Tax Rules, 1994 not required to be followed.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that when EOU procures inputs by availing benefit of notification no. 52/2003-CUS, while clearing such inputs to DTA, EOU is required to pay duty only by way of cash.
CESTAT Hyderabad in Shakelly Venkat Chand Vs Commissioner of Customs, asserts Customs Broker’s accountability for their employee’s act of misrepresentation before Customs Authorities.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that all the evidence leads to the conclusion that duty element is treated as an expenditure and not as receivables. Accordingly, as the duty incidence is passed on and therefore hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Tribunal has come to a conclusion that no explicit findings have been given by the other Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the present Appellant has abetted in contravening any provisions of Customs Act.
