The issue under consideration is whether assessee is justified in reducing the assessable value to the actual cost of production in the inter-unit transfer of goods?
Sova Solar Ltd. Vs CCE & ST (CESTAT Kolkata) It is pertinent to consider whether CBEC can enlarge or modify the scope of an exemption notification which is in the form of a subordinate legislation through a letter or circular. Taxing statutes have to be strictly construed and the power of taxation lies with the […]
Blue Star Civil Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) The facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Blue Star Civil Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mecheda was engaged in evacuation of ash pond for Durgapur Projects Ltd., Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad, Rites Ltd. for railway and McNally Bharat for […]
Activity of transportation of iron ore lumps from the mines site to the appellant’s crusher plant does not constitute GTA service in terms of Sec.65(105)(zzp) read with Sec.65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Ashirwad Foundaries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT dropped the demand of Service tax on GTA under RCM, stating revenue neutrality. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) and CCE, Vadodara Vs Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2005 […]
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Ex. (CESTAT Kolkata) It is clear that the Revenue has suddenly taken upon itself the understanding that the Drugs & Cosmetics Act has distinguished the ‘toilet soaps’ that the content of 60% TFM and above alone are soaps and less than 60% are bath preparations which is totally […]
S. K. Mineral Handling Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) In this case contract is essentially for the transportation of goods which incidentally involving loading of tipper/unloading of tipper at Railway Track head/Railway Siding which cannot be taxed under the category of Cargo Handling Service simply because rates for […]
Credit cannot be denied in the hands of the recipient even if the duty was legally not payable by the supplier or that higher amount of duty has been paid by the supplier against whom the department has initiated proceedings.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S. Tax (CESTAT Kolakata) Vide Notification No. 26/2014-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-8-2014 – In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in rule 9, in sub-rule (1), after clause (f), the following clause shall be inserted, namely “(fa) a Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of goods by Rail […]
Show Cause Notice mentions the leviablity of Service tax on the amount received towards the compensation for non supply of the agreed quantity of manganese ore under Section 64E(e) of Finance Act which is even otherwise is purely the transaction sale of the iron ore to the Appellant by M/s Amit Mines. Thus, the compensation amount is towards default on the sale of the goods. The sale could not be effected and, therefore, Appellant received the liquidated damage by way of raising the debit note which was honoured by M/s AML. Thus, this amount of compensation/ liquidated damage cannot be treated as service under Section 64 E(e) of the Act.
