M/s. Tuticorin Port Trust Vs. CCE, Tirunelveli
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
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
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.
CCE (Adj.), Delhi
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
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
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
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.