Supreme Court held In the case of CIT vs. Bank of Nova Scotia that there is no substantial question of law, the facts and law having properly and correctly been assessed and approached by the CIT (A) as well as by the ITAT that for levy of penalty u/s 271C
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there are two things which become apparent from the reading of the Order of the High Court that are: The duty for which the claim of refund is made, was paid under protest by the Respondent during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings; Further, the intermediary product was not marketable.
MRP based valuation applicable to institutional buyers for goods which are specified under Section 4A of the Excise Act, covered by SWM Act, 1976 & Rules thereof and further, MRP was affixed on the goods supplied which are not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules thereof- Commr. of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1159 – SUPREME COURT]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no such writ petition to claim refund of duty, interest and penalty was maintainable when the proceedings in respect of the Respondent had attained finality and the amount was recovered.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Versus M/s. TVS Motors Company Ltd, It Was Held by Supreme Court That PDI charges and free ASS charges after the sale of vehicles should not be included in the assessable value for the purpose of calculation of excise duty.
The assessee is engaged in the process of cold-rolling of hot-rolled stainless steel patta/patti on job work basis. As per the assessee, for this purpose, it receives hot-rolled SS patta/patti from other manufacturers and thereafter undertakes the process of cold-rolling in the cold-rolling mill.
In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that excise duty is paid by the manufacturer on branded goods manufactured
In the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the case of levy of interest u/s 11AB on excise duty paid due to price escalation which has already been decided in the cases of SKF
SC overruled the CESTAT Larger Bench decision in Maruti Suzuki case and held that pre-delivery inspection charges and after sales service charges are not to be included in assessable value- Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore Vs. TVS Motors Company Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 874 – SUPREME COURT]
In the case of M/S. MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. V/s COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, it was held that if a particular item participates in or is required for a manufacturing process, but does not form part of the end product and instead it is specifically or totally consumed during a manufacturing process, the same would be treated as ‘consumables’.
