In Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. – 1997 (94) E.L.T. 16, the Supreme Court held that service and maintenance charges in respect of tonners/cylinders which are durable and returnable cannot be added to the assessable value of the chlorine manufactured by the assesses and supplied to the customers in tonners/cylinders
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Aarti Industries Ltd. vs. CCEx, Thane held that wrong availment of Cenvat credit cannot be said to a willful attempt of suppression with the intent to evade the payment of duty when the matter has been interpreted in different manner by different tribunals and courts.
Advance received as an earnest money for which bank guarantee of equal amount is given to the customers, is more in the nature of a deposit and accordingly not liable to Service tax unless it is adjusted towards the consideration for services rendered- Thermax Instrumentation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – I [2015 (12) TMI 1222 – CESTAT MUMBAI]
Input services not only cover services of falling in the substantial part of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but also cover services which are covered under the inclusive part as the same having some sort of nexus with the business activity of the assesses.
The appellants are Export Oriented Unit (EOU). In 2003 they cleared the certain consignments of fabrics for purpose of export, which got damaged due to rain and had to be brought back to the factory.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Precision Metals vs. CCEx held that as per the special procedure prescribed in Notification no. 214/86 job worker can get duty exemption in respect of job worked goods cleared to principal manufacturer but this exemption donot make the goods as exempt from duty because ultimately duty got paid at the principal manufacturer send
It was held that when goods are cleared to the customers at a discount, the assessable value for the purpose of assessment should be the value arrived at after giving the quantity discount and not the value at which the goods were cleared from factory to depot.
The CESTAT Mumbai held that when there is no allegation regarding fraud, willful misstatement, suppression of fact which are required as per Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act , then imposition of penalty by the department is wrong and illegal.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCExheld that as per Rule 11(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification 23/2004-CE, the amount of credit earned by the manufacturer under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which existed prior to 10.9.2004, can be utilized by them as per transitional rule 11 of the new Cenvat credit rules,2004.
When the admissibility of Cenvat credit is not disputed on legal grounds viz eligibility and duty payment document, then credit cannot be denied merely on technical lapses.
