Indian Tax Solutions
Home | Why Register? | Register | Subscription | Contact Us | Discussion Board | Pay Online
Last Updated : Friday 26th September, 2014 - 1:27pm
NEWS UPDATES

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 | Levy of service tax on activities involved in relation to inward remittances from abroad to beneficiaries in India through MTSOs Continue reading |
PEO company
Category Archives: CESTAT
   

CESTAT

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

2014-ITS-1527-CESTAT- M/s. Wimplast Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman , Dated 26.09.2014

We do not agree with the above interpretation of the Commissioner. Credit is available in respect of capital goods procured by the assessee. Sub-rule 4(3) only further enlarges the scope by stating that the credit would not be disallowed even if capital goods are acquired from a financing company, it does not mean that the capital goods must be acquired from a financing company and any other acquisition of capital goods from the company, who is not a financing company, will disentitle the availment of Modvat Credit. Interpretation adopted by the Commissioner would defeat the very legislative intent of allowing Modvat Credit in respect of capital goods. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1530-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 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd -Vs- CCE Ahmedabad-II , Date of Decision:25.09.2014

Considering the fact that it is a requirement of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules framed there under that such instruments/equipment be properly calibrated and checked from time to time, it would appear that such certification is a statutory requirement and it is necessary for the assessee to avail of such service, inasmuch as in the absence of such certification, the assessee may have to face the consequences of breach of such statutory provisions. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1522-CESTAT- M/s. Atul Products Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat , Date of Decision : 25.09.2014

As there is one-to-one correlation with respect to inputs used, duty paid on such inputs and the extent of exemption, therefore, this has to be considered only an exemption notification in which the extent of exemption is determined by the duty paid on the inputs. The extent of set-off available shows that there is no payment of duty and the same is not required to be paid on the finished products manufactured by the appellant. The registers maintained and debited indicate only to correlate the extent of exemption admissible and can not be said to be duty paid after assessment. Rather duty assessed to be paid is only known after deducting the duty paid on inputs. Once the extent of set-off claimed by the appellant under Notification No. 432/86-CE is not payable as duty of excise, the same was not required to be indicated on the gate passes as duty assessed and was also not recoverable from the customers. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1523-CESTAT-M/s. Gopala Polyplast Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Date of Decision : 25.09.2014

The reading of the first proviso to Notification 5/94 does not indicate at all that the credit of specified duty shall be restricted to the components of additional customs duty actually paid by 100% EOU as excise duty . Further, the question of restricting the benefit to the additional duty actually paid (emphasis supplied by us) under Section 3 of the CTA, 1975 does not arise because there is no payment of additional duty of Customs and what was paid was only Central Excise duty. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the issue is no longer res-integra as the issue has already been settled by the Larger Bench judgment cited supra and judicial discipline requires that we follow the law laid down by the Larger Bench unless contrary judgment by a higher judicial forum is cited before us. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1520-CESTAT-1. M/s Mclloyds & Company 2. Shri Harshad Dayalal Vadodaria -Vs- CC., Ahmedabad , Date of Decision : 24/09/2014

 As we have already reproduced above, the chemical analysis of the sample sent to Dy Chief Chemist specifically indicates that the sample is made of Polyamide yarn. This would indicate that the basic material of the so called carpet is nothing but plastic and the said wastes and scrap is consumed by the appellant for crushing them into granules for re-exporting. In our view, the goods which are imported cannot be classified under 5702.32 but can be classified under Chapter 3915.00 only. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1519-CESTAT-M/s. Chopra Transport Company M/s. Chopra Logistics M/s. Chopra Transport Agency -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Dated 22.09.2014

Under the circumstances the law laid down by Supreme Court in (AIR) 1990 SC 2158 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The same issue has been also been decided by the larger bench in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi [2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (Tri.-LB)] where it was held that validity of dispatch by speed post without proof of delivery and simultaneous affixing of order on the notice board is not considered to be the proof of delivery. The judgment of CCE Ltd. v. Mohan Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) (255) E.L.T. 321 (P & H)] relied upon by the ld. AR. is not applicable in this case because appellant in that case failed to discharge the burden that order in question was not served upon them. Continue reading

Search
Advanced Search
 
Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

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