Indian Tax Solutions
Home | Why Register? | Register | Subscription | Contact Us | Discussion Board | Pay Online
Last Updated : Friday 10th October, 2014 - 4:06pm

FRAMING OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS IN CASES OF FISH FARMERS INVOLVED IN RUNNING INLAND FRESH WATER FISH TANKS - CBDT ISSUES GUIDELINES Continue reading | Central Board of Excise & Customs extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, from 25th October, 2014 to 14th November, 2014. Continue reading | Conditions for export of Dried Silk Worm Pupae to EU have been notified. Continue reading | Where for purpose of export, assessee hired vessel owned by a UAE company which operated only in international traffic/waters between India and Maldives, in view of Indo-UAE DTAA, hire charges paid to UAE company had to be taxed only in UAE Continue reading | Determination of place of removal - CBEC issues guidelines Continue reading | Approval of long term bonds and rate of interest for the purpose of Section 194LC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Continue reading | Govt hikes tariff value of gold and reduces the same for RBD Palmolein Continue reading | Exchange Rate for the purpose of import and export with effect from  17th October, 2014 Continue reading | Export warehousing - Extension of facility at Bhuj Taluka  in Kutch District in the state of Gujarat Continue reading | Amendment of Notification No. 27/2014 - Central Excise (NT) dated 16.09.2014 Continue reading |
PEO company
Category Archives: CESTAT


2014-ITS-1534-CESTAT- M/s. Bhouri Oils India Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman , Decision : 10.10.2014

As per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, if the last working day is closed due to holiday, the next working day would be considered as the last working day Continue reading

2014-ITS-1548-CESTAT-M/s.Prince International -Vs- C.C.E. NOIDA , Pronounced on 09.10.2014

Record reveals that in the guise of Basmati rice, attempt was made to export non Basmati rice adopting questionable modus operandi. Actually 6 containers were attempted to be cleared. Containers were stuffed in such way that front row contained Basmati rice and second row contained non-Basmati rice. First row was used to camouflage the inferior goods rows. Samples were tested which proved intention of appellants to deceive revenge. Misdeclaration came to record. Test Results indicated that consignments were non basmati rice export of which is prohibited by DGFT Notification No. 55/(RE-2008)/2004-2009 as amended. Test results showed exported goods were non-basmati rice. That demolishes the defense plea of mixing of consignments and non basmati rice were wrongly loaded in the containers. Test reports confirmed that representative samples did not conform to the requirement of average length & length/breadth ratio as prescribed by the DGFT Notification and were contrary to the specifications of rice declared by the appellants failing to meet the specifications of Basmati rice as per the Agmark specification.
Continue reading

2014-ITS-1549-CESTAT-M/s.Vaibhav Overseas -Vs- C.C.E. NOIDA , Pronounced on 09.10.2014

Upon examination, it was noticed that M/s.Vaibhav Overseas had attempted to export poor quality and substandard and non Basmati rice in the guise of Basmati rice in four shipping bills covering 13 containers, declaring to contain basmati rice, were seized. It was found that only the bags in front row were of basmati rice and rest of the bags non- Basmati rice. The grain of non basmati rice did not conform to the specification of Basmati Rice as provided in DGFT Notification no. 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 5..11.2008 (as amended) which required that grain of rice shall be more than 7mm of length and ratio of length to breadth of the grain shall be more than 3.6, the consignments were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 196. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1526-CESTAT-M/s Business Overseas Corporation -Vs- Commissioner of Customs, Respondent (Import & General) New Delhi , Date of Decision : 03.10 .2013

Looking to the facts of this case I am of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant s contention backed by C.A. Certificate and cost data that incidence of customs duty whose refund is being claimed was not passed on by them to the customers. I, therefore, agree with the decision of Hon ble Member (Judicial). However, I clarify that refund claim of only basic customs duty of Rs.10,63,065/- would be available to the appellant, as the balance amount of Rs.25,28,755/- represents additional customs duty/SAD whose Cenvat Credit has been taken by the appellant. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1546-CESTAT-M/s Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd -Vs- CCE, Meerut II , DATE OF DECISION : 30/09/2014.

From a perusal of Rule 11 (3) as well as 11 (2) it is clear that these two sub-Rules of Rule 11 are also in accordance with the general principles of the Cenvat credit that no Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of inputs or in put services which have been used in or in relation to manufacture of the exempted final products. As observed by the Apex court in its judgment in the case of CCE, Vadodara vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertlisers Co. Ltd. (supra) mentioned above, this principle is inbuilt in the very structure of the Cenvat credit scheme and Rule 6 (1) and Rule 6 (2) also merely reiterate and highlight this principle. Therefore, no Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of any inputs which have been used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1547-CESTAT-Satyabrat Swain , M/s. Surya Polypack Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut I, Date of decision: 30.09.2014

Non-observance of even a procedural condition is not to be condoned for the purpose of permitting an exemption, if the same is likely to facilitate commission of fraud or introduce administrative inconveniences. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1545-CESTAT-M/s. Vlecha Engineering P.Ltd -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak , Date of decision: 29.09.2014

We fully agree with the appellants that the exemption is in respect of World Bank Projects and not in respect of manufacturers of the raw materials. The material having been admittedly received from Indian Oil Corpn. whether from Panipat or from Mathura Road, would be entitled to the benefit of exemption.
Continue reading

2014-ITS-1524-CESTAT-M/s. Sunshine Fibre Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi .Dated 26.09.2014

 The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding denial of CENVAT credit on cenvatable documents which are in the name of appellant s HQ but the inputs are received in the factory and CENVAT credit is taken. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1525-CESTAT-M/s. Lao More Biscuits Pvt. Limited Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad M/s. Lao More Biscuits Pvt. Limited , Dated 26.09.2014

As per Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 a manufacturer of dutiable excisable goods can take credit of input services received by him. In the present facts, freight is paid by M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Limited and not by the appellant. The service tax paid under the challans are reverse charge basis has thus, to be considered as service tax paid by M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Limited and not by the appellant. Cenvat credit of such service tax paid is not admissible to the appellant. Appeals filed by the appellants are thus, required to be rejected and appeal filed by the Revenue is required to be allowed.
Continue reading

2014-ITS-1521-CESTAT- M/s. Sterlite Industries Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi , Decision : 26.09.2014

There was thus a delay in sanctioning the refund claim of the appellant from three months after 27.09.2004 to 09.3.2006. Accordingly, it is held that interest on delayed payment of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11B is admissible to the appellant under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Similar view has been expressed by this bench in the case of Reliance Industries Limited vs. CCE, Vapi (supra) and Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Reliance Industries Limited (supra). 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.