Excise Duty : In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a...
Excise Duty : Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. CCEC (Supreme Court of India) The legal heirs submitted that a reading of Sections 2(f), (3), Section 4...
Excise Duty : In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. M/S Sarvotham Care Limited, it was held that wherein the shampoo havi...
Custom Duty : In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Not...
Excise Duty : In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished prod...
Custom Duty : In the case of M/S. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs , it was held by Supreme Court that anti-dumping duty could not b...
In the case of The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. it was held that invoking Section 11A is not mandatory for recovering the wrong refund granted.
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 appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract
An agreement was entered into between the respondent and Met Chem Canada Inc. to associate Met Chem Canada Inc. as a technical consultant to render technical services in relation to implementation of a project to set up a plant in India for production of Hot Rolled Steel Coils and Strips.
In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a product for excise purpose Primary use of the product will prevails over the incidental ones. It further held that merely because a particular embossed hologram is self adhesive, therefore in all cases, it will attract entry 39 related to self adhesive is not correct. While classifying what is to be seen is whether the self adhesive part of the product is of primary use or the printed matter is of primary use. It cannot be that invariably in all cases, the moment a hologram is self adhesive it will fall within entry 39.
In the case of M/s.A.B.Agencies Vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held by Kerala High Court that a CHA cannot be absolved of his lapse of supervision and misconduct of his employees attracting Clause 19 of the Regulations warranting action against him under Regulation 20.
In attracting the principle of unjust enrichment it is not only the actual burden which is passed on to the another person that would be taken into consideration even if the incident of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person
In the case of CCE&C vs. M/s Rasmi Wax Coated Paper & Printing Industry it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that the subject processes viz., printing, slitting and winding Cork Tipping Paper does not amount to manufacture and no subject processes undertaken by the assessee was bringing
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further states Section 124 deals with confiscation of goods and penalty and does not deal with payment of import duty. No doubt, such a payment of import duty becomes payable by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 125 but only when condition stipulated in the said provision is fulfilled
In view of the retrospective amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2010, the appellant were entitled to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product and by foregoing this credit