CA Urvashi Porwal - Page 10

Mens Rea need not to be proven in case of mandatory penalty–HC

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Nazareth Alloys (Bombay High Court at Goa)

In the case CCE V/s Nazareth Alloys (High Court of Bombay at Goa), it has been held that by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Dharmendra Textile Processors’ in case provisions of law provides for mandatory penalty, then revenue need not establish mens rea....

Read More

Recovery cannot be made from bonfide purchaser of DFIA/DEPB license – CESTAT

Sumit Wool Processors Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai)

In the case of Sumit Wool Processors vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) it was held that it is a settled law that even a license obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts is only voidable and not void ab-initio. It is good in law until it is avoided....

Read More

CENVAT credit on capital goods used in the construction/erection of plant is allowed

M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs The CESTAT (Madras High Court)

In the case of M/s.Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs. The Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that CENVAT credit on capital goods used in the erection of various capital goods, viz., M.S.Plates, M.S.Angles, M.S.Channels and H.R. Plates, which were purchased...

Read More

‘Close up’ should be classified as dental cleaner, not toothpaste–SC

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi Vs M/s. Global Health Care Products (Supreme Court of India)

In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. M/s. Global Health Care Products , the Supreme Court held that ‘Close up’ should be classified as dental cleaner, not toothpaste on account of different ...

Read More

CENVAT credit of outdoor catering & outward transportation upto place of removal allowed

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. (Madras High Court)

In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid in respect of cell phone services, catering services ...

Read More

Valuation rules should not be invoked, if the transaction is done on arm’s length price even in case of related parties – SC

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs M/s. Detergents India Ltd. & Anr. (Supreme Court Of India)

In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/S. Detergents India Ltd., Supreme Court has held that in case of related party transactions, proviso (iii) of Section 4(1)(a) will not be applicable when there is no arrangement between Shaw the related parties to depress a price which is otherwise at arm's length....

Read More

Section 11A mandatory for recovering refund granted pursuant to the order which subsequently declared as unsustainable – HC

The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati Vs M/s. Panyam Cements & Industries Ltd. Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

In the case of The CC&CE V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd., Kurnool, it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that invoking Section 11A is mandatory for recovering the refund granted pursuant to the adjudication order passed under section 11B which subsequently declared as unsustainable...

Read More

Job worker should be considered as manufacturer subject to arrangement between parties- SC

Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Vs M/s. Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)

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 ...

Read More

Mere Value addition to Inputs does not amount to Manufacture – SC

M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (Supreme Court of India)

In the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by SC that a process that is only adding some value to the inputs does not necessarily amounts to manufacture. After processing of the inputs, a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or ...

Read More

Refund can be claimed by person other than Manufacturer in certain conditions – SC

M/s. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur (Supreme Court of India)

In the case of M/s. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur, it was held that a person who is ultimately aggrieved with the payment of the duty and challenges the order successfully can seek the refund as per Rule 11B of the act....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,692)
Company Law (7,673)
Custom Duty (8,724)
DGFT (4,627)
Excise Duty (4,527)
Fema / RBI (4,815)
Finance (5,184)
Income Tax (38,465)
SEBI (4,133)
Service Tax (3,782)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930