adone67.doc
+ adone68.doc + cbecorder69.doc
Lalit
Kumar Gupta is new JS (Admn) of CBEC;
CENTRAL
EXCISE SECTION
excircular847.doc
I.V. Cannula not exempted - CBEC issues Circular; exnt07_16.doc
Advance Ruling forms changed;
2007-TIOL-30-SC-CX.doc
+
sc story.doc
Question of
dutiability can be agitated before the CESTAT any time - If duty
is payable cenvat credit has to be allowed;
2007-TIOL-310-CESTAT-AHM.doc
+ varun
story.doc
Appeal - OIA
- Commissioner himself cannot file appeals - Revenue's appeal dismissed;
2007-TIOL-309-CESTAT-MUM.doc
Rule 16(2) of CER’2002 – Piston rings
manufactured & initially cleared on payment of duty brought
back & credit availed – cutting & scrapping the same
is not a manufacturing activity – assessee required to pay
an amount equal to cenvat credit availed – payment of duty
on scrap value will not suffice;
Since the assessee did not disclose to the department
the process to which they were subjecting the defective piston rings
in the factory, extended period is invokable.;
2007-TIOL-308-CESTAT-MUM.doc
Modvat
credit – Section 38A of the CEA’44 will not cover a
case of substitution of rules – demand notice issued in November
2002 proposing recovery of modvat credit under rule 57AH is bad
in law – Tribunal decision in Sunrise Structurals & Engg
followed.
Cenvat
provisions cannot be invoked to recover modvat credit allegedly
wrongly availed & utilized;
SERVICE
TAX SECTION
stnot07_013.doc
Advance Ruling forms changed
2007-TIOL-306-CESTAT-DEL.doc
Refund
- Service Tax on Consulting Engineering Service - Since the agreement
was only for transfer of technical knowhow and no element of consultancy
involved, no tax is liable to be paid - Refund claim upheld;
CUSTOMS
SECTION
cnt07_021.doc
Advance Ruling forms changed; dgft06pn088.doc
Services Export Promotion Council in place - will issue RCMC;
2007-TIOL-112-HC-DEL-CUS.doc
Appellant,
an employee of CHA company has admitted in his statement that exporter
had disclosed to him that the goods are being exported to claim
fraudulent drawback by mis-declaring the value of the goods –
imposition of penalty justified.;
Even
though the statement has been retracted the fact remains that the
containers on re-examination were found to contain old and used
garments instead of “Ready made garments” as declared
on the shipping bill – no merit in appeal.;
Clause
14 of CHALR, 1984 – agent is required to exercise due diligence
– non-signature on documents cannot absolve him of any penalty;
2007-TIOL-306-CESTAT-DEL.doc
Refund
- Service Tax on Consulting Engineering Service - Since the agreement
was only for transfer of technical knowhow and no element of consultancy
involved, no tax is liable to be paid - Refund claim upheld;
|