|
CENTRAL
EXCISE SECTION
2007-TIOL-862-CESTAT-MUM.doc + hindalco story.doc
Once duty has been paid on excisable goods & the same are later returned by the consignee & rule 16(1) of CER 2002 is followed, it cannot be said that the goods were non-marketable in the first place & the same are "waste & scrap" - Demand upheld but penalties set aside - Tribunal.
Removal of the goods from the factory after discharging the duty liability indicated that the appellant themselves accepted that the goods are marketable.
The argument of the Ld. Advocate that no duty is payable on the non-marketable goods could have come to his rescue provided the appellant had not cleared the goods from his factory premises and destroyed the same in his factory premises. Provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as there could be a mis-understanding of the provisions of Rule 16.
Since
the issue involved is a question of interpretation of Rule 16,
the penalties imposed on the appellants under Rule 25 are also
not warranted and hence the same are set aside : Cestat;
2007-TIOL-861-CESTAT-MUM.doc
Although Electricity Board is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, since its entire capital is provided by State Government, it is a State government undertaking & is eligible to exemption under Notfn. No.74/93 CE, 175/86-CE and 1/93-CE - SC decision in Electricity Poles Manufacturing followed - Revenue appeal rejected:Cestat;
SERVICE
TAX SECTION
2007-TIOL-860-CESTAT-MAD.doc
Service tax - Refund - Matter remanded to the original authority to decide the question of unjust enrichment afresh:Cestat; 2007-TIOL-859-CESTAT-MAD.doc
Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Services - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - The basic condition under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 for rendering production of goods on behalf of client taxable has prima facie not been satisfied in this case - Stay granted:Cestat;
CUSTOMS
SECTION
NOTIFICATIONS cnt07_066.doc
Not 62/94 amended to notify ICD in Kerala;
cuscir07_23.doc
Charter of functions for RMS division + local committee; CASE LAWS
2007-TIOL-864-CESTAT-AHM.doc + LB story.doc
Whether burden of proof to establish the veracity of export value lies on the exporter or department? Issue goes to Larger Bench
:Cestat;
2007-TIOL-863-CESTAT-BANG.doc
Customs - duty on bulk liquid cargo - quantity received in the shore tanks should be the basis for assessment but not the ullage quantity as there will be always difference between the ullage quantity and the quantity received in the shore tanks :Cestat; |