Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Commr. of Central Excise & S. Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) The issue before us is whether credit is available on Coal Handing Plant (CHP), which has been set up by the appellant for evacuation of coal from its mining premises. Purpose of setting up of the CHP is to load the […]
Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit IV) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital […]
CESTAT applied the User Test to the facts in hand and held that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit.
Since he confiscated gold was not of Foreign origin and smuggled into India and the confiscated Indian Currency which had been claimed by assessee was not established or proved to be the sale proceeds of smuggled Gold, therefore, the order was passed to release the 6 pcs confiscated gold bars and Indian Currency to assessee being the rightful owner of the goods.
RNB Carbides & Ferro Alloys Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) Current appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No.29/SH/CE(A)/GHY/09 dated December 18, 2009 (OIA), wherein the revenue after scrutinizing the M/s. RNB Carbides & Ferro Alloys Private Limited (Appellants) accounts book held that the Appellants had overvalued its products by including freight […]
Petro Carbon & Chemicals Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) The short issue that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid by it on the freight component in relation to transport of goods from non-taxable territory to India […]
Since assessee had exercised option in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and once this fact was established from the materials on record, there could be no demand in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and also nowhere it was mentioned that an assessee should pay any amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Service rendered by Tata Sons Ltd. under BEBP agreement between Tata Steel Ltd. and Tata Sons Ltd. was eligible as ‘input service’ for TSL and the service tax paid was available as cenvat credit to TSL under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The goods imported by assessee, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon etc., which they described as ‘carbonated beverage with fruit juice’ were neither carbonated beverage alone nor fruit juice alone gave the essential character of the products in question; both contribute to its essential character. The issue could not be resolved as per Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation and therefore resort was to be made to Rule 3(c). Since Customs tariff heading (CTH) 22029920 came last in the order, it prevails and the goods were classifiable under this heading.
M/s. Tinplate Company of India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Assessee adid not receive any amount from TSL as and by way of consignment agent or towards providing any consignment agency service under the consignment agency agreement and also, assessee had cleared the converted goods on payment of […]
