rlt084-Part4.pdf + rlt084-Part5.pdf
RLT Case Laws Headnotes;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2008-TIOL-80-HC-MAD-CX.pdf + mad cx story.pdf
Cenvat credit - Hydrochloric Acid to treat effluent, M.S.Angles / Channels, oxygen gas, acetylene gas, electrodes, welding wire, transformer oil – all entitled – no question of law to interfere with Tribunal's order: MADRAS
HIGH COURT;
2008-TIOL-212-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
Central Excise – Stay /Dispensation of pre-deposit – Capital goods credit availed on ‘Transport Tanker with Chasis for liquid Gases' and ‘Tank Trailer Vacum Isolated for Cryogas'. The impugned goods was not used within the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, and no valid document evidencing proof of the duty paid against which credit could be taken was available. Prima facie no case made out by the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit. Pre-deposit of duty ordered. However, pre-deposit of penalty waived on compliance of order. (para 5): CHENNAI CESTAT; SERVICE TAX SECTION
2008-TIOL-213-CESTAT-AHM.pdf
ST - Rent-a-Cab-Operator - Demand with interest and penalty raised - Assessee argues there was no service tax leviable on a single cab operator - Since the law underwent a change and the number of cabs is not relevant, the Revenue's demand is sustainable but penalty reduced: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
dgft07not077.pdf
Govt completely prohibits export of non-Basmati rice; CASE LAWS
2008-TIOL-211-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
Customs – Valuation – parts of Sun brand computers imported – duty demanded by rejecting the transaction value and enhancing under Rule 8 of Customs valuation rules - Commissioner has not established convincingly that value of goods of technically comparable characteristics was adopted to assess the impugned goods - it essential that while employing principles of Valuation Rule 5 to determine the value of the electronic goods, the appraising authority does not adopt value of goods not shown to be of identical technical characteristics and brand. Valuation adopted by the Commissioner is arbitrary. Once the adjudicating authority gave a categorical finding that the impugned goods could not be considered to be identical to any other goods already imported, the Commissioner is barred from resorting to assessment following method under Rule 5 treating the goods under assessment as identical to goods already imported:CHENNAI CESTAT; |