SERVICE TAX SECTION
2009-TIOL-1707-CESTAT-MUM.pdf
CCE, Aurangabad Vs Chate Coaching Classes Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 25, 2009)
Misc. Application for out of turn hearing of the appeal - Considering involvement of high stakes including service tax demand of Rs.2.8 crores, the application is allowed and appeal posted for early hearing. :MUMBAI CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-1705-CESTAT-BANG.pdf
M/s Sri Sai Communications Vs CCE, Guntur (Dated: May 20, 2009)
Service Tax – No assessee will take hospitalization as a ruse to delay in filing appeal – Appeal filed within extended period of three months from last day of original period of appeal condonable by Commissioner (Appeals) – Impugned order dismissing appeal set aside and matter remanded for de novo consideration :BANGALORE
CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2009-TIOL-571-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + settle story.pdf
M/s Alluminium Profiles Ltd Vs UoI, New Delhi (Dated: July 8, 2009)
Settlement Commission – Section 32F does not provide for payment of dues in instalments – Orders passed by Settlement Commission are conclusive – No merit in Writ Petition for High Court to intervene when legislative intent is clear :BOMBAY HIGH COURT; 2009-TIOL-1709-CESTAT-MAD.pdf M/s Spic Limited Vs CCE, Madurai (Dated: July 3, 2009)
Central Excise – demand of duty on account of short receipt of furnace oil under exemption notification no 21/2002 Cus dated 1.3.2002 – the difference in the quantity can be attributed to transit loss, method of weightment, loss in unloading – demand set aside. :CHENNAI CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-570-HC-MAD-CX.pdf + Strategic story.pdf
M/s Strategic Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (Dated: September 7, 2009)
Central Excise – Appeals – Stay - the quantum of duty cannot be the sole criterion for deciding a stay petition. In a case where the quantum of duty is huge, the Tribunal may find no prima facie case to grant a stay. In a case where the quantum is very small, the Tribunal may find an open and shut case. In other words, the quantum cannot be the sole criteria for deciding a stay petition.: MADRAS HIGH COURT;
2009-TIOL-1706-CESTAT-MAD.pdf M/s India Actuators Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: June 4, 2009) Central Excise – 100% EOU – Debonding – Destruction of capital goods / raw materials / finished goods – As per Notification No.53/97-Cus which governs the appellant EOU, there was no provision for destruction of capital goods till 22.05.2000, while the show cause notice had been issued prior to the above date. HELD - The relevant EXIM policy had already been amended prior to the issue of show cause notice, and it provides for destruction of obsolete capital goods, raw materials and finished goods and the request for destruction was made after the issue of the show cause notice, and the impugned order was passed well after the Notification itself had been amended to provide for destruction. Circular No.18/98-Cus dated 16.03.1998 clarifies that destruction could be permitted under the notification currently in force . Destruction of obsolete goods allowed. ( Para 3) :CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATION
dgft09not016.pdf
Amendment in policy for issue of import licences for rough marble blocks/slabs w.e.f. 1st October, 2009;
CIRCULAR
dgft09cir012.pdf
Import licences for Rough Marble Blocks/Slabs – Issue of balance quota for the year 2009-10 as per New Policy;
CASE LAWS
2009-TIOL-1708-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
M/s Refex Refrigerants Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: July 22, 2009)
Customs – Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit – valuation – enhancement of value by the Commissioner – there is no lacuna in the value adopted by the Commissioner and he is justified in applying the residual method of valuation in adopting the value of comparable goods contemporaneously imported at other ports – pre deposit ordered. :CHENNAI CESTAT;
2009-TIOL-1704-CESTAT-KOL.pdf
M/s Sunita Impex Vs CC, Kolkata (Dated: August 4, 2009) Customs – Claim of drawback of excise duty on export of knitted fabrics – No concrete evidence to suggest inputs sent to job worker were duty paid – Prima facie not a strong case for assessees for full waiver of pre-deposit – Considering claim of financial hardship appellants directed to pre-deposit 50% amount :CHENNAI
CESTAT;
|