CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2008-TIOL-1392-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + nidhi story.pdf
Mrs Nidhi N Gupta Vs CCE, Mumbai V (Dated: August 8, 2008)
Attachment
of property whether in name of company or Director Remand
proceedings - Reliance on findings of an earlier order which
was itself remanded by the Tribunal is an incorrect proposition
in law Matter once again remanded by Tribunal: CHENNAI
CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1391-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
M/s Sakthi Sugars Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: February 13, 2008)
MS Angles, Channels, Plates used for fabrication of structural support to machinery and false floor components for covering cables are capital goods CENVAT credit eligible Appeal allowed
MS angles, sheets, channels etc., were admittedly used in the manufacture of structural support to machinery. The machinery is admittedly classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and, therefore, any accessory thereto such as structural support, would be capital goods falling under Rule 2(b)(iii). The sheets, angles etc. were used in the manufacture of capital goods (the structural support to machines), which was further used in the factory (Para 5)
Being a safety provision for the underlying cables, the false flooring components can be treated as accessories to such cables and hence covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 2 (b) (iii) (Para 6):CHENNAI CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1390-CESTAT-BANG.pdf
CCE, Mangalore Vs M/s Rajashri Packages Ltd (Dated: April 2, 2008)
New plant and machinery is connected to the old plant Entire unit has to be viewed in totality When goods manufactured are in an integrated process and by-products are cleared on payment of duty it cannot be said that the capital goods are used exclusively for production of exempted goods - CENVAT credit on capital goods not deniable Order of the lower authority affirmed Departmental Appeal set aside :BANGALORE CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1389-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
M/s Anitha Devi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: April 11, 2008) Excess duty collected from the buyers in any manner to be deposited with the Government Provisions of Sec 11D squarely applicable Tribunal
In other words, it is not necessary that a person who collected any excess amount of duty unauthorized from the buyer of the excisable goods shall have collected the amount directly. The above provision is to prevent unjust enrichment of a person liable to pay duty, who might collect excess amount representing it to be duty of excise in respect of the goods cleared for home consumption, from his buyers (Para 2):CHENNAI
CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2008-TIOL-1388-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + auto story.pdf
CCE, Belgaum Vs Chadha Auto Agencies (Dated: May 7, 2008) Service tax Assessee engaged in sales and services of two wheelers Financial institutions provided office space, furniture etc in the premises Lease of table space to financial institutions and receiving remuneration for the same cannot be categorized as Business Auxiliary service Not liable to service tax Tribunal's earlier decision in Silicon Honda followed No merit in Revenue appeal and hence dismissed:BANGALORE CESTAT; 2008-TIOL-1387-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
CCE, Indore Vs M/s Panasonic Battery India Co Ltd (Dated: July 24, 2008)
ST - Consulting Engineering Service - Transfer of technical knowhow - Royalty charges paid - Since it is a case of pure transfer of technical knowhow, no service was provided - no tax to be levied:DELHI CESTAT;
2008-TIOL-1386-CESTAT-KOL.pdf
M/s Perfect Technologies Vs CCE CC & ST, Siliguri (Dated: July 8, 2008)
ST - Tax on service recipients - Assessee imports software by downloading the same online and uses the same into home automation system - Assessee argues that since imported software is a good, no service tax can be demanded - Revenue argues downloaded software can be placed under Online Information & Database Access'' category - Since the part of disputed period is covered by Sec 66A and the Revenue not able to explain the lack of jurisdiction of the adjudicating commissioner, it is a fit case for waiving pre-deposit:KOLKATA CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
2008-TIOL-1385-CESTAT-DEL.pdf
RAJ Kumar Anand & Others Vs CC, New Delhi (Dated: June 2, 2008)
Import of PU foam/leather Evidence recovered from laptop of the appellant shows the actual description and value of the imported material and hawala transactions Bank Accounts of the importer-companies were operated by the Appellant Primafacie proved that the importer-companies were only dummy/front companies - Retraction of statement filed with the Court and not with Customs authorities In the absence of any cognizance by Court cannot be considered as retraction Pre-deposit of Rs. 2.77 Crores ordered - Stay Applications adjourned for till the date of compliance : DELHI
CESTAT; |