M/s. Bazter (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & C, Aurangabad
Larger Bench: the payment of duty before or after show cause notice cannot alter liability to penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
SGS India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai
the services rendered by the appellant were consumed abroad where the appellant’s clients used the service of inspection/test/analysis to decide whether the goods intended to be imported by them from India conformed to the requisite specifications and standards. In other words, the benefit of the service accrued to the foreign clients outside the Indian territory . By no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was no export of service. The services, in question, were exported. Export of service has ever been tax-free as observed by the CBEC. This exemption has never been affected by Notification no. 6/99-ST or its recession. Ultimately, therefore, we hold that no service tax was leviable from the appellant.
M/s Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut
The benefit of the notification is not based upon the said procedural requirement of filing a declaration. In any case, declaration stands filed by the appellant. The fact that Notification No. 49/2003-CE was mentioned instead of Notification No. 50/2003-CE,cannot be considered to be a mistake fatal to the appellant's claim of benefit. It is well settled law that the substantive benefit if otherwise available should not be disallowed on the basis of minor procedural irregularities. In the present case, we find that even such irregularity of non-filing of declaration was not there.
DLF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi
the appellant entered into an agreement with BCCI-IPL dated 13.02.2008 and for title sponsor agreement wherein the appellant was appointed as exclusive title sponsor of the League for the Cricket IPL 20-20 matches at a consideration of Rs. 40 crores. The demand against the appellant stands confirmed on the ground that the activity of sponsoring the IPL is liable to service tax under the category of "sponsorship service" in terms of section 65 (99a) of Finance Act, 1994 read with sub-clause (zzzn) of section 65(105) of chapter 4 of Finance Act, 1994.
M/s. Hemadri Cement Ltd. (HCL) Vs. CCE & C, Guntur
the respondent is eligible for input duty credit on the structural materials used for reconditioning of existing capital goods. -On the second issue (whether the structural materials used in fabrication of the capital goods which were in turn used for the manufacture of cement (final product) in the factory), the respondent’s case is squarely supported by the Second Explanation to the definition of “input”. Therefore the issue is held in favour of the respondent
M/s. Federal Mogul TPR India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore
a) Manufacturer-appellant taking credit on piston rings in coil form and sending the same under Rule 4 (5) (a) for the purpose of chrome plating is in order. - b) As the activity of chrome plating does not amount to manufacture and no excisable goods emerge, there is no question of exemption from excise duty and, therefore, levy of service tax is attracted on the said activities.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai
Larger Bench: an assessee is eligible to avail the credit of balance 50% of the amount of duty paid on the capital goods in the subsequent financial year, without installing the same and putting it into use - The condition imposed under the relevant Cenvat Credit Rules, for taking credit of balance of 50% of amount of duty on capital goods in subsequent financial years, in case the capital goods are lying in the factory for installation and the process of erection was being carried out has to be considered as the capital goods were in possession and use for manufacture
M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh
Larger Bench: Whether imported custom duty paid goods falling in any of the Schedules to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would come within the ambit of the expression “excisable good” used in the text of sub-section (1) of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.”
M/s Intercontinental Cargo Services Vs. CC, Delhi
Larger Bench: (a) No appeal lies before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Customs in respect of rejection of an application for license under Regulation 11 of CHA, 2004. - (b) If CHA is aggrieved with such rejection of renewal, he can challenge the same before Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Customs & Excise as provided under Regulation 9(5) of the CHA Regulation.
Indian Potash Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad
The appellant manufacture sugar and molasses chargeable to Central excise Duty. They avail Cenvat Credit of excise duty paid on input. In course of manufacture of sugar during crushing of sugarcane a by-product/waste-bagasse emerges. The department was of the view that since the appellant have not maintained separate account and inventory of the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final products-sugar and molasses and exempted final product-bagasse, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they would be required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value of bagasse
M/s Pan Parag India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur
there is no evidence to indicate that there was clandestine manufacturing. There is no independent tangible evidence on record of any clandestine purchases or receipt of the raw materials required for the manufacturing of the alleged quantity of finished goods for its clandestine removal from the factory. In the entire notice and the order there is no satisfactory and reliable independent evidence as regards the unaccounted manufacture and or receipt of the huge quantities of raw materials. The quantities of the alleged bags dispatched from the factory would require some transportation arrangement for delivery from the factory. However, any reliable evidence about any vehicle coming to or going out of the factory without proper entries is not forthcoming. There is also no cogent evidence about any freight payment for any such movement.
M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore
(a) ADG DRI had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notices and the show-cause notices have been validly issued. - (b) There is no violation of principles of natural justice by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order. - (c) The equipments imported by the assessee-appellants form an integrated system with preloaded software with associated licence for use of the same. The separate import of software in CDs/ODs was a deceitfully devised method to evade customs duty by hiding the preloading of necessary software in the imported hardware system.
Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CST, Hyderabad
The adjudicating authority has brought the appellants’ services within the ambit of “turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects” specified under clause (e) of the definition of “works contract” under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994.
DHL Lemuir Logistics (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai
the assessee was availing wrongly exemption of service tax under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31/03/2004 for the CHA services rendered outside the unit situated at Special Economic Zone, Chennai
M/s. Lumbini Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Patna
PVC crates being used as inputs/capital goods in the manufacture of aerated waters accordingly CENVAT Credit is admissible on the same.
Surya Roshni Limited Vs. CCE, Rohtak
The department being of the view that the goods supplied to SEZ Developers are “exempted goods” and since the common Cenvat Credit availed input have been used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable as well exempted final products, and separate account and inventory of inputs meant for dutiable and exempted final products have not been maintained, the Appellant, in respect of supplies of pipes & tubes to SEZ Developers, would be liable to pay an amount equal to 10% of the sale value under Rule 6(3) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
Shah Precicast (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolhapur
the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy.
DSCL Sugar Vs. CCE, Lucknow
Credit is admissible on Rent of godown, Sugar handling charges & Security services availed at godowns, Insurance of sugar in transit, Insurance of cash/money in transit, Insurance of cashier, Vehicles hire charges, Insurance of Vehicles.
Lafarge India (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur
the “place of removal” would be the “place of removal” for the purpose of Rule 4 of Central Excise Rules, i.e. the places on removal from where the duty is liable to be paid, which in this case, is the factory gate of Sonadih factory, as the duty on clinker becomes payable at the time of removal from Sonadih factory. Therefore, the GTA service for transportation of clinker from Sonadih factory to Nipania depot, having been availed after the removal of the clinker from the factory, is ‘prime facie’ not covered by the definition of ‘input service’.
Chate Coaching Classes (P.) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad
appellant is engaged in providing the service of commercial training and coaching- the appellant is providing study material to students and the value of the said material has not been included in the assessable value of the services-the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification NO.12/2003-ST.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur
rent-a-cab service availed for bringing the employees to the factory and dropping them back home is covered by the definition of “Input Service”. - the service tax paid on ambulance service i.e rent-a-cab service for ambulance, by the appellant in respect of welfare of employees has nexus with the production of final product.
M/s Electric Pole Manufacturing Vs. CCE, Meerut
Commissioner (Appeals) have power to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority even after the amendment of Section 35A(3).
A.S. Sikarwar Vs. CCE, Indore
service tax can be demanded under section 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units.
M/s. M.R.J. Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Meerut
Right of appeal is statutory and curable defect may be removed upon notice from Registry without compulsion by Registry to file delay condonation application.