Indian Tax Solutions
Home | Why Register? | Register | Subscription | Contact Us | Discussion Board | Pay Online
Last Updated : Saturday 18th April, 2015 - 1:31pm

Anti-dumping duty imposed on "Acetone' originating in, or exported from Chinese Taipei and Saudi Arabia Continue reading | The facility of payment of application fee/ penalty/ any other fee through demand draft is being restored by suitably amending the Appendix 2K of Appendices and Aayaat Niryat Forms, 2015-20. Continue reading | CBEC notifies New Customs Exchange rates for all foreign currency with effect from 17th April, 2015 Continue reading | CBEC amends Drawback Rates for Items under chapter 28 and Notification relating to Exchange Rates Continue reading | Drawback of specified goods (deemed to be imported) used in exports - Amendment to Notification No. 44/91-Cus. (N.T.) Continue reading | CBEC hikes tariff value of gold but reduces same for Silver and also hikes same for RBD Palmolein Continue reading | GOVT notifies exemption to Transport Allowance of Rs 1600 for normal taxpayer and Rs 3200 for blind and handicapped Continue reading | Keeping in abeyance the provisions of para 2.55 and 2.56 of Handbook of Procedures, 2015-20. Continue reading | CBEC issues clarification on the effective date of new rate of service tax Continue reading | The number of 4% SAD refund claim at a Customs station shall be limited to one in a particular month  Continue reading |
Category Archives: CESTAT


2015-ITS-161-CESTAT-M/s Atcom Technologies Ltd. -Vs- Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman & Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman -Vs- Shri Nalin Desai, Chief Manager, M/s Atcom Technologies Ltd. , Date of Decision:27.03.2015

This was a statutory declaration filed by the assessee under the then Rule 57T of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944. But, the fact remains that the appellant used the machinery exclusively in the manufacture of the exempted product. Thus, it is a clear case of mis-declaration of facts. The assessee deliberately declared that the imported capital goods would not be used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted product and then they are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit. Thus, it is a clear case of mis-declaration to evade payment of duty. Hence, the extended period of limitation would be applicable. Continue reading

2015-ITS-160-CESTAT-M/s. Asia Metals : Appellant (s) , Shri Pratik Gandhi – Partner of M/s. Asia Metals , 3. Shri Satish Jadeja , 4. Shri Dharmendrasing Chudasama , 5. M/s. Vitrag Impex , 6. Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain Power of Attorney Holder M/s. Vitrag Impex , 7. M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited , 8. Shri Kishor Purohit Manager of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Date of Decision : 27.03.2015

The Tribunal held that if the clearances made in excess of permissible limit for DTA clearance it may amount to be a case of diversion of finished goods and no duty is demandable on raw material used in the manufacture of such diverted goods. Revenue filed appeal against the said decision before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which was rejected as reported in 2010 (255) ELT A15. The other aspect of this issue is that it has already held that demand of duty on finished goods is sustainable as the finished goods were received by the said two parties and therefore, the demand of customs duty on raw material falls through. Hence, the demand of duty on the raw materials alongwith interest and confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine are not warranted. Continue reading

2015-ITS-162-CESTAT-M/s. Enlightment99 Software Consultants Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara , Dated 20.03.2015

It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. Continue reading

2015-ITS-163-CESTAT-1. M/s. Personna Cosmetics , 2. Shri Hakim Thanawala -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi , Date of Decision : 20.03.2015

I find that the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the Appellant No.1 (M/s. Personna Cosmetics) can not be sustained. But, the Appellant No. 2 (Shri Hakim Thanawala) had given a misleading statement to the Central Excise officers and therefore, penalty is warranted. However, considering the fact that Appellant No. 2 (Shri Hakim Thanawala) is an employee of another unit and therefore, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). Hence, the impugned order is modified to the extent the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on the Appellant No.1 (M/s. Personna Cosmetics) are set-aside and the appeal filed by the Appellant No.1 is allowed. Continue reading

2015-ITS-164-CESTAT-Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II -Vs- Panasonic Battery India Co Ltd , Decision: 20.03.2015

 I find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.) held in favour of the Assessee. It has been held that the credit is available upto 01.04.2008. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) S.T.R. 4 (Guj.) held the identical issue in favour of the Respondent. Continue reading

2015-ITS-165-CESTAT-Motif India Infotech P Ltd -Vs- Commissioner of Service Tax-SERVICE TAX AHMEDABAD , Decision: 20.03.2015

 In the present case, it is not a case of manufacture & clandistine removal of goods, but admissibility of Cenvat Credit to the appellant for which appellant was also eligible for refund under Rule, 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further Apex Court in the relied upon case law remanded the case back to the Tribunal to examine the case, where it was open for the assessee to contend the extended period of limitation. It is a well established concept that invokablity of extended period has to be seen from the facts of each case. In the present proceedings before the Bench, it is observed that there can not be any intention to evade payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism as per Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994 when appellant is also eligible for Cenvat Credit of service tax so paid under reverse charge basis. Continue reading

2015-ITS-167-CESTAT-Pidilite Industries Ltd -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Adjudication)-VADODARA-II) , Decision: 20.03.2015

In the interest of Justice, as the refund relates to export of goods by the appellant, a certificate should be produced by the appellant from the developer that the approved services by the approval committee of the developer communicated to the appellant Vide Letter Dated 02.01.2011 stood approved and were applicants for the period September 2010 to January 2011. Continue reading

2015-ITS-168-CESTAT-M/s Sethi Tools Pvt Ltd -Vs- Commissioners of Central Excise, – Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-II , Decision : 20/3/2015

As per the above provision an assessee who paid the service tax on Renting of immovable Property before introduction 9 Sec 80(2) cannot be put at a disadvantage vis-`-vis a tax payer who delayed and paid tax on the same service after 6.3.2012. Further, there was a dispute on the levy of service tax on Renting of Immovable Property and the same was brought to the notice of the department by the appellant through a letter dt 12.6.2008. Accordingly, it has to be held that appellant had a reasonable cause for non-payment of tax during the relevant period. For such an eventuality waiver from penalties was always available under Sec 80 of the Finance Act 1994 even before the introduction of Sec 80(2). Continue reading

2015-ITS-169-CESTAT-Elastimold India Pvt Ltd -Vs- Commissioners of Central Exise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI , Decision: 20.03.2015

The fact that transit insurance of the finished goods is borne by the appellant clearly indicates that ownership of the finished goods lies with the appellant till there delivery to the customers premises. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the place of removal shits to the customer s premises and Cenvat Credit of insurance services availed in relation to such delivery will be admissible to the appellant as held by this Bench in the case of Priya Industrial Packaging (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Daman (Supra). Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed on merits. Bench has not gone into the limitation aspects of the demand raised by the appellant as on merits, the appeal is being decided in favour of the appellant. Continue reading

2015-ITS-103-CESTAT-M/s. Nirma Limited -Vs- ommissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Dated 13.03.2015

In view of the case laws relied upon by the appellant, services availed in relation to exports on account of REPO Charges, Transportation from factory to place of export, Terminal Handling Charges etc., are eligible for refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007. In view of the settled proposition of law in the case of the appellant itself and the other case laws, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief. Continue reading

Advanced Search
Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

  Forgot Password? | Sign Up
Subscribe Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter and be kept with latest Indian Tax solutions.