Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
the value of
such free food and non-alcoholic beverage provided by an employer to an
employee is treated as expenditure incurred by the employer and amenity in
the hands of the employee. It is this perquisite given by the customer to
its employees by adopting the methodology of vouchers and for its proper
implementation, services of the appellant are utilised. For all the
aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High
Court has not discussed and decided the issue correctly and warrants
interference. We, thus, allow these appeals and set aside the judgment of
the High Court by holding that Sodexo Meal Vouchers are not 'goods' within
the meaning of Section 2(25) of the Act and, therefore, not liable for
either Octroi or LBT.
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur
is leviable under Section 11AB of the Act on the differential duty amount
paid under supplementary invoices due to price increase by virtue of price
variation clause in the sale contract.
M/s Gujarat Industries & Ors. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad
of†cold-rolling†undertaken by the assessee on the†hot-rolled†stainless
steel patta/pattis amount to 'manufacture' within the meaning of Section
2(f)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. -the CESTAT was correct in
holding that the process ofcold-rolling†of stainless steel patta/pattis
amounts to manufacture in view of Chapter No.4 of Chapter No.72 of the
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
M/s. TVS Motors Company Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mysore
inspection charges and after sales service charges are† would not be
included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act for the
purposes of paying excise duty.