DNH Spinners Vs. CC & CE, Vapi
the documents were not in the name of the assessee's factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds
Force Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune
Cenvat credit with regard to service tax paid by them on the use of mobile phones and maintenance of motor vehicles as input service which is provided by the appellants to their employees / officers. - †the mobile phones are all standing in the name of the company and used by the employees in relation to the work only and incidentally can be used for personal work but that by itself is no ground to deny the credit - the appellants are entitled to avail credit as input on the said service availed to the extent of allotted limits
Shardha Terry products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem
prior to the enactment of Section 66A, there was no authority vested by law on the respondents to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India but who receives services outside India.
M/s Fascel Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad
it was the appellant who worked out the duty liability, the fact that Revenue did not do any investigation except issuance of show cause notice based upon the profit and loss account, the fact that amount involved can be considered† to be a drop in a bucket when the total amount of service tax paid by the appellant is taken into account, I think it is a fit case for invoking Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant
M/s Manigarh Cement Works Vs. CCE, Nagpur
as the respondent has not established nexus between any of the four services and the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods, the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of such service cannot be allowed
Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur
If it is found that the main contractor paid service tax on the same service for the same period, there would be no tax liability for the assessee (sub-contractor).
M/s Jindal Drugs Limited & Others Vs. CCE, Jammu
the education cess and higher education cess which was paid alongwith the excise duty in terms of exemption Notification No. 56/02 dated 14.11.2002 are not refundable alongwith the excise duty paid under the said exemption notification.
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur
From the scheme of determining Central Excise Duty on the goods sold by a 100% EOU into DTA, as laid down in the proviso to Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is clear that the goods manufactured by a 100% EOU have been placed on par with the imported goods and the sale of the goods by a 100% EOU into DTA is on par with import of goods into India. Therefore, if the such sale satisfies the conditions for accepting the transaction value, as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 and the circumstances referred to in Rule 10A are not present, the transaction value of such DTA sales can be adopted as assessable value under Section 14(1) of Customs Act read with Rule 3 of the Valuation Rules.
Endress Hauser Flowtec (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad
(i) Whether the invoice price of the flowmeters sold by the PC, (a 100% EOU) into the DTA to SC (related person) is the transaction value for the purpose of payment of excise duty under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or whether the duty is payable on the sales price of the goods sold by SC to the customers? - (ii) In the alternative, whether the assessable value is to be worked out under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988?