CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2008-TIOL-1010-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + depb story.pdf
M/s Loyal Textile Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated : May 9, 2008)
Credit of CVD paid in DEPB - at the material time, there was a divergence of opinion as to the admissibility of Modvat credit of CVD Paid by adjustment in DEPB Scrip among the various benches of the Tribunal. The issue was ultimately resolved by the decision of the Larger Bench in Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2004-TIOL-807-CESTAT-DEL-LB .
Penalty need not be imposed just for the reason that the statute provides for the same. – The discretion to impose a penalty must be exercised judicially. A penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligations: but not, in cases where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. :CHENNAI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1009-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
M/s Margra Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated : January 25, 2008)
Central Excise – condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the period of ninety days – Section 35 of the Central Excise Act contains expression provisions for condonation of delay - Commissioner (Appeals) committed no error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation - Question is whether Tribunal can direct the Commissioner to hear the appeal on merit. The Supreme Court rejected a similar contention observing that such a direction would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. :DELHI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1008-CESTAT-BANG.pdf
CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Sri Vajra Granites Limited (Dated : January 31, 2008) 100% EOUs – DTA sales – benefit of notification 8/97 CE can not be denied on the ground that Epoxy resin and Ager were used in polishing the granite slabs as the same are only consumables and not raw materials – no merit in revenue's appeals. :
BANGALORE CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2008-TIOL-1011-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
M/s Nypro Forbes Products Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated : February 7, 2008)
Intellectual Property Service is not Consulting Engineer's Service :CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
dgft08not017.pdf
Import of marble : Licensing note amended; dgft08pn034.pdf
DGFT adds more ports as 'port of registration';
dgft08cir012.pdf
Guidelines for import of Rough Marble Blocks/Slabs for the year 2008-09; CASE LAWS
2008-TIOL-1007-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
Manish Kumar Jain Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : March 28, 2008)
Customs – duty demand on goods imported under Advance Licence on allegation of diversion from the job-workers – In case of post-export imports, the importer is not required to endorse the name of his job worker in the Licence – this aspect was not properly considered by the Commissioner – the Commissioner relied more on the oral evidences than the documentary evidences produced by the appellants - It is trite law that documentary evidence must prevail over oral evidence – matter remanded. :CHENNAI CESTAT; |