Excise Duty : T. T. Recycling Management India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) is a resident Private Limited Company...
Excise Duty : It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of PET Chips. The applicant now intends to start a new business whereby the applicant i...
Excise Duty : Nucleus Device is classifiable under Tariff Entry 85176290 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as Machines...
Excise Duty : The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dism...
Excise Duty : In the instant case, the applicant has submitted that the tag is applied by them while placing the jewellery in the box to preven...
The Petitioner is carrying on business of fabrication and erection of plants, structures etc. The Petitioner undertakes the projects on turn key basis as well as on work contract basis. The Petitioner has been registered as an assessee with the Service Tax Department since 2008.
In the case of Devang Paper Mills Pvt Ltd Vs UOI, it was held that merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties.
In the case of Bank of Baroda VS Commissioner of Service Tax it was held that the service of transmission and exchange of financial messages falls under the category of Banking and Other Financial Services and service tax should be levied accordingly
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. CESTAT, it was held by Madras High Court that the assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on the capital goods/inputs used in the manufacture of goods which are exempted and which are cleared without payment of duty on Job work basis.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs M/s.Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd., it was held by High Court of Madras that the assessee is entitled for automatic refund of the Extra Duty Deposit made pending finalisation of the provision assessment without filing an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In the case of Flevel International V/S Commissioner Of Central Excise, it was held by Delhi High Court that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In the present case
In the case of Vodafone India Ltd. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by Bombay High Court that by following the principles laid down in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, a telecom service provider is not entitled to credit of duty paid on towers
In the case of CCE V/s. M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to the cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending.
In the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., it was held by Madras High Court that the decision of the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the demand of service tax for the period beyond the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance Act
In the case of, M/s. Aidees Electronics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE it was held by Madras High Court that if the original authority had invoked the enhanced period of limitation on only one particular ground viz., suppression of fact and the appellate authority had set aside that finding
