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.
Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeal) (CESTAT Hyderabad) HC held that the appellant have rightly taken credit in view of Rule 2(l) of CCR which entitles a manufacturer to claim Cenvat credit on input services utilise in manufacture of dutiable taxable goods. HC further hold that there is no bar in […]
CESTAT Hyderabad held that service tax is leviable only if service provider provides lease services and is also a Telegraph Authority as defined under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Both conditions needs to be satisfied, for levy of service tax.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that as per Rule 3 of General Rules of Interpretation specific description is to be preferred over a general description. Accordingly, CTH 9027 is more specific for instrument – I Stat System along with cartridges, etc. than CTH 9018.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is just a procedure and procedural lapse cannot be ground to deny the substantial benefit of Cenvat Credit.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that value of freight charged for delivering goods to buyers premises is not includible in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.
