Services  |  Subscribe  |  Contact Us  |   Feedback   |  E-mail  |  News |  Home

Email | Print

Important Links         SC  HC  CESTAT  ITAT  AAR


M/s. Tuticorin Port Trust Vs. CCE, Tirunelveli

monthly Royalty Charges received by the appellants from their Licensee during the period under dispute for the development of Seventh Berth as Container Terminal and Operation and Maintenance on BOT basis as per the Licence Agreement dt. 15.7.1998 are chargeable to service tax under "Port Services".

M/s Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd.
Vs. CCE, Goa

Larger Bench: We uphold the impugned orders in so far as they relate to valuation and assessment of imported Fixed Wireless Telephones (FWT) considering them as single goods for assessment without any segregation of value for software

ITC Vs. CCE, Chennai

Larger Bench: When one manufacturing unit(Unit A) of a company transferred the goods to another manufacturing unit (Unit B) of same company; the excise duty was paid on 110 per cent of cost of production as per CAS4.What is the cost of goods for Unit B- 100 OR 110.

M/s Tower Vision India Private Ltd.
Vs. CCE (Adj.), Delhi

Larger Bench: post 2006, wherever appellants are paying service tax under the category of “Business Auxiliary Services”, or “Business Support Services” for providing passive infrastructure, the  appellants are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on towers, pre-fabricated  shelters parts thereof etc. in the light of the decision  in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd.

M/s. Titan Industries Ltd.
Vs. CCE, Chennai

Gold Jewelleries are sold in exclusive “Tanishq” show rooms and the invoices/bills and the certificate of authenticity etc. bear the appellant’s brand name “Tanishq” and the appellant's decision to sell the jewellery without using logo of "Tanishq" or "Goldplus" but affixed with the markings of “Q” & “I”  and sold through their exclusive outlets/showrooms clearly falls within the definition of "Brand name/Trade name of Chapter Note 12 and the Explanation to the Notification No.4/2005 dt.1.3.2005. we have no hesitation to hold that jewellery manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the relevant period are branded jewellery and chargeable to duty.

Eastman Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madurai

provisions of Rule 8 will not apply where the goods were partly cleared to independent buyer and also held that rule 4 is to be preferred over rule 8.  This Tribunal in the case of Gangotri Electrocastings Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Patna (supra) has held that clearances to related person, value should be on the basis of sales of same goods cleared to independent customers as per rule 4.   The ratio of Tribunal's LB in Ispat Industries (supra) and the above Tribunal decision in Gangotri Electrocastings (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

M/s. Kundan Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune

the Cenvat credit was denied on the GTA service on the ground that the GTA service has no nexus with the taxable service such as “Authorized Service Station” and “Business Auxiliary Service”. This Tribunal has held that no arithmetical correlation is required between the input and output services and accordingly the credit was allowed.   In the case of Shariff Motors (supra) similar facts was involved that the assessee had availed the Cenvat credit in respect of GTA service which is used for transportation of motor cycles from factory to show room which were sold as such and credit was utilized for payment of service tax under authorized service station. The Division Bench has allowed the credit on GTA service.  This decision has been upheld by the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court.


HOME ¦ Judgment ¦ Central Excise ¦ Customs  ¦ Service Tax ¦ Income Tax ¦ VAT ¦ Finance Act ¦ Finance Bills ¦ EOU STPI ¦ SEZ ¦ DGFT ¦ RBI ¦ NTT ¦ Resources


  Copyright © 2006 | All rights reserved
website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments