CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2008-TIOL-1369-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + officers story.pdf
CCE, Salem Vs M/s Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills (P) Ltd (Dated: June 4, 2008)
Let
it not be forgotten that only officers with genuine interest
in the work and dedication to their duty can subserve the interests
of the Revenue in litigation before the Bench. These things indicate
defects in the way the department's litigation is often being
conducted before this Bench. It is for the authorities concerned
to revamp the system and to ensure that the Revenue's case is
effectively presented before the Bench. Certified copy of this
order shall, therefore, be sent to the CDR for necessary remedial
action: CHENNAI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1365-CESTAT-MUM.pdf
Inn-Venue Hospitality Management Pvt Ltd Vs CCE,Pune-III (Dated: January 1, 2008)
Central
Excise – refund – unjust enrichment – though the price charged
to the customers remain same before and after the assessments,
it does not lead to the conclusion that there is no unjust enrichment – this
is applicable even for the goods covered under Section 4A: MUMBAI
CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2008-TIOL-1367-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
CST, Delhi Vs M/s Raj Consultants (Dated: July 17, 2008)
ST
- Assessee paid tax before issue of SCN on its own - Penalty
- Commissioner drops charges as delay in payment happended for
the first time and the tax was paid on its own volition and Department
was accordingly intimated - No fault in Commissioner's order: DELHI
CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1364-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
CST, Delhi Vs M/s Chintpurni Securities Ltd (Dated: June 24, 2008)
ST
- Stock broker service - On detection the assessee pays tax after
issue of SCN - Interest paid later - Penalty - Although adjudicating
authority was right in charging interest as the tax was not voluntarily
paid but since no mala fide has been alleged in the Commissioner's
order, Revenue's appeal rejected: DELHI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1363-CESTAT-MUM.pdf
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Vs CCE (Dated: July 16, 2008)
ST
- IUC Service - Total waiver granted in view of Tribunal's decision
in Fascel Ltd case: MUMBAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
2008-TIOL-1368-CESTAT-MUM.pdf
M/s S R Nagpal & Sons Vs CC, Nhava Sheva (Dated: May 19, 2008)
Customs – refund
of differential duty paid on price revision which was set aside
by the Tribunal – if the refund is granted to the appellants,
it will unduly enrich them - the averments made by the appellants
with regard to unjust enrichment are factually incorrect, wrong
and completely misleading - the appellants have no locus standi
over the amounts paid: MUMBAI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1366-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
CC, Chennai Vs Shri Deepak Mehta (Dated: May 2, 2008)
Customs – Stay
petition by the revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order – prima
facie the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that in case of import
of car on transfer of residence, ownership of the car imported
has no relevance is sustainable – stay petition rejected: CHENNAI
CESTAT; |