CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2008-TIOL-588-CESTAT-BANG.pdf
CCE, Cochin Vs M/s Teejan Foods (P) Ltd (Dated : January 11, 2008) CE – Cenvat credit – used capital goods – duty paid on transaction value – correct : BANGALORE CESTAT;
2008-TIOL-587-CESTAT-KOL.pdf
M/s Eastern Steel & Allied Industries Vs CCE, Kolkata II (Dated : December 31, 2007)
Adjudication Order did not deal with the contentions of the appellant - Natural justice demands that decision should be based on evidence of probative value.- Neither the Appellate Authority below could dispose the matter by a speaking and reasoned order nor have they examined various facts governing the issue - If the Public Authorities do not exercise their power for disposal of public grievances, public confidence would be lost on public servants : KOLKATA CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-586-CESTAT-AHM.pdf
M/s J A Enterprises Vs CCE, Surat (Dated : January 7, 2008) Central Excise – classification of copper tubes or pipe fittings used in the manufacture of air conditioners - Merely because they are manufactured according to the specifications and sizes given by their customers who are air conditioner manufacturers, will not take out the goods from the category of copper tubes and pipes and would bring the same under the category of air conditioner part, especially when Heading 74.12 does not lay down any criteria as regards dimension of the goods – the impugned goods would fall under Ch 74. : AHEDABAD CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION
Instruction.pdf
Service Tax refund to exporter : CBEC puts monitoring system in place for speedy refund; CASE LAWS ara story.pdf
Service Tax – sale of constructed houses – liable to pay Service Tax under 'construction service' and not under 'works contract' : Advance Ruling 2008-TIOL-584-CESTAT-BANG.pdf
M/s Kin-Ship Services (I) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & C, Cochin (Dated : January 31, 2008)
Service Tax – port service – stevedoring activity of loading and unloading of the cargo can not be considered as service rendered on behalf of port and is not taxable under port service – impugned order set aside. : BANGALORE CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-583-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
M/s Terex Veetra Equipment (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated : February 12, 2008)
ST - GTA Service - Assessee, a manufacturer, pays service tax on GTA Service as recipient of input service - utilises credit for paying tax on GTA Service - Revenue for allowing credit only for output services - Assessee claims exemption under Not no 32/2004-ST which allows payment of service tax on a value equivalent to 25% of the gross sum charged by GTA - Prima facie, such exemption is avaiable irrespective of the fact that whether the customer, the recipient or the GTA pays the tax - Waiver from pre-deposit granted :DELHI CESTAT; CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
cnt08_037.pdf
Tariff Value of Brass scrap increased;
dgft08cir002.pdf Actual User Condition for import of Sugar under Advance Authorisation Scheme – DGFT clarifies; CASE LAWS
2008-TIOL-585-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
CC, Amritsar Vs Etco Telecom Ltd (Dated : February 7, 2008
Customs – DEPB benefit – telecom communication equipment Vs telecommunication transmission equipment – the CESTAT had earlier remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for the limited purpose of examining the eligibility of three items – Commissioner (Appeals) can not go beyond the remand order and decide the eligibility of other items or issues.
Remand – scope of - Tribunal order was not an open remand nor the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside - It was undoubtedly a limited remand - Having regard to the limited scope of the remand order, it was not open to the Commissioner to dwell upon and adjudicate other issues - if the respondent was not satisfied with the scope of the remand order and it thought that other issues should also be adjudicated by the Commissioner, on remand, it should have sought modification or clarification of the order from the Tribunal. :DELHI CESTAT; |