The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Secure Meters held that parts and accessories which are goods included in the heading of the Chapter 90, are to be classified in their respective headings. The end of such goods is not determinative of its classification.
Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K.R.C.D Pvt. Ltd. held that the royalty paid by the principal manufacturer to some other person for use of any copyright is not includible in the assessable value of the final goods cleared from the factory of job worker as the royalty paid by the principal manufacturer do not flow any additional consideration to the job worker.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Kali Aerated Water Works held that the restricted right to use of any trade mark and trade name does not make it use as use of brand name belonging to others since the assessee has right to use though restricted as mutually agreed between some parties.
The appellant contented that such a notional fixation of the handling charges with the addition of one per cent of free on board value of the value of goods, irrespective of the nature of goods, size of the cargo
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Spark Limited held that the process of assembling various parts bringing into existence Water Purification & Filtration System amounts to manufacture as the assembled component is different commercially known product with distinctive use.
The charges such as Landing Charges, Lighting Charges, Approach and Aerodrome Control Charges, Aircraft Parking Charges, Aerobridge Charges, Hangar Charges, Passenger Service Charges, Cargo Charges etc.
CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (Supreme Court of India)- Restriction on extent of commercial area in ‘housing project’ imposed w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to housing projects approved before 1.4.2005 even though completed after 1.4.2005 – Section 80-IB(10).
The appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of export of marine products and also financial consultancy and trading in equity shares. Its total business does not consist purely of exports but includes business within the country as well which situation is covered by Section 80HHC (3)(b).
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Custom in Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2005 decided on 29.07.15 has held that assessment proceeding under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 cannot be continued against the legal representative/estate of a sole proprietor/manufacturer after he is dead.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa V/s. M/s Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd., it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of job work arrangement, the job worker should be considered as manufacturer on the basis of the arrangement
