Indian Tax Solution


Filter by publish date

2017-ITS-44-CESTAT-Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut Commissionerate Vs M/s. Orion Battery- 9/5/2017

Rebate of Excise duty where customs duty component is claimed as drawback.

2017-ITS-26-CESTAT-M/s Hindustan Machines Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi),DT- 04/05/2012

No SSI Exemption on manufacturing own Goods with 3rd Party Brand.

2017-ITS-23-CESTAT-Hitachi K. K. Manufacturing Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata),DT-20/03/2017

Value of Goods obtained on job-work cannot be included into turnover to calculate SSI Limit.

2017-ITS-19-CESTAT-Kapstone Paper and Packaging Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E. & S.Tax,Surat DT- 21/02/2017

Lessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on capital goods on which lessor has availed depreciation U/s. 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2017-ITS-25-CESTAT-C.C.E. Vs M/s Avi Sales Pvt Ltd. (CESTAT Ahmedabad), DT-21/02/2017

Personal Penalty on director for clearance of taxable goods as exempt is unwarranted in absence of their role in the same.

2017-ITS-42-CESTAT-CCE Vs. PRP Wire Ropes , DT-08/02/2017

Section 11D cannot be invoked if excise duty collected been paid to Govt.

2016-ITS-467-CESTAT-M/s Meenu Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS Commissioner of C.Ex. Customs & S.Tax, Meerut I,DT-07/01/2016

I find that it is admitted fact that the appellant have enhanced their installed capacity of production from 5000 M.T. to 15,000 M.T. which have been approved by the Central Excise Department. It is further admitted fact that the expansion in capacity took place during the period 2007 to 2009, to which the amount in dispute (input credit) in this appeal relates. I further find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant\'s own case as noticed hereinabove have by a speaking and reasoned order accepted the claim of Cenvat credit. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.5,70,549/- being the amount debited by them under protest on 1/4/13, with interest as per Rules

2017-ITS-03-CESTAT-M/s Kaira District Co Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd Versus C.C.E. & C. Vadodara,DT-06/01/2017

The Chartered Accountant\'s Certificate now produced needs to be scrutinized alongwith supporting evidences that would be produced by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue of unjust enrichment afresh in the light of evidences on record and that would be produced by the appellant in the denovo proceedings.

2016-ITS-474-CESTAT-Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Nagpur Vs. M/s Superpack,DT-13/12/2016

In our considered view, the first appellate authority was within his jurisdiction to pass an order on the allegations regarding mis-declaration by suppressing the facts and willful mis-statement. We do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue as they have not contraverted in the findings of the first appellate authority by any evidence but only are seeking to expunge these observations on the ground that they were travelling beyond show-cause notice.

2016-ITS-506-CESTAT-CCE Vs. Minda Industries Ltd., DT- 08/12/2016

Section 11AC: No Interest / Penalty on value of goods escalated by buyer retrospectively.

2016-ITS-473-CESTAT-M/s. Walltracts (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Import),Mumbai I,DT-02/12/2016

In the absence of any such evidence, we find that the transaction value as declared by the appellant should not have been rejected. Our this view is fortified by the apex court in Sounds N. Images 2000 (117) ELT 538 (SC) wherein the Lordships have settled the law that the burden to establish by methods known to law and in a satisfactory manner that the value of imported goods is not what the importer says it is and what that value actually is- That onus cannot be shifted to the importer. In the case in hand, this onus has not been discharged by the revenue.

2016-ITS-385-CESTAT-Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-II, Date: 06/10/2016

Irrespective of the classification of service, if the same are provided within the port, such services should be considered as port service for the purpose of refund benefit.