SERVICE TAX SECTION
2010-TIOL-433-CESTAT-KOL
M/s Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Bhubaneswar-II (Dated: February 1, 2010)
Appellant entering into contract with Tata Iron & Steel for providing service relating to excavation and transportation of Run of Nine (RON) - Transportation of goods is within the mining area Revenue raising and confirming a service tax demand of Rs.1.24 Crores on the ground that appellant providing Business Auxiliary Service and Cargo Handling Service CESTAT in the case of CCE,vs. B.K.Thakkar (2008-TIOL-148-CESTAT-KOL) has held that transportation within the mining area is part of mining activity and hence, the assessee is not separately liable to pay Service Tax Strong prima facie case in favour as the Contract is for mining, and 'Mining Service' comes under the scope of Service Tax w.e.f.01.06.2007 - present demand is prior to this period Waiver of pre -deposit of the amount of Service Tax, interest and penalty - Stay Petition allowed. : CHENNAI CESTAT;
2010-TIOL-429-CESTAT-AHM
M/s Modern Petrofils Vs CCE, Vadodara (Dated: February 5, 2010)
ST - Cenvat Credit of ST paid on GTA services for outward freight from factory to port of export - Revenue argues that the point of removal can only be the factory or a warehouse or a depot - Assessee treats port as place of removal - held, in view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of ABB Ltd the case is settled in favour of the assessee and the fact that the Karnataka HC has stayed the decision will not make any impact - Revenue's appeal dismissed : AHEMDABAD CESTAT;
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2010-TIOL-432-CESTAT-BANG
CCE, Hyderabad-I Vs M/s Agarwal Rubber Pvt Ltd & Others (Dated: January 12, 2009)
Central Excise SSI exemption clubbing of clearances of different units and denying exemption revenue has not controverted findings of the adjudicating authority in allowing the exemption Mere financial accommodation in form of loans, would not by itself be construed as pervasive financial control exercised by one company over other the order of the adjudicating authority upheld. : BANGALORE CESTAT;
2010-TIOL-431-CESTAT-MAD.pdf
M/s Alfomega Enterprises Private Limited Vs CCE, COIMBATORE (Dated: November 20, 2009)
Central Excise – Penalty – non-payment of duty when the inputs on which
credit had been availed were cleared as defective – the assessee had raised
necessary invoices showing the details such as value, amount of duty
payable on the defective inputs, yet did not pay the duty – charge of
suppression stands established – Penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 rightly imposed. : CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION
2010-TIOL-176-HC-MAD-NDPS + ndps story.pdf
L. Sundhuskhan Vs State Rep. By The Superintendent Of Customs (Dated : February 5, 2010)
NDPS Act punishment for possession of morphine / heroine punishment structure based on the quantity of the drug it is only the actual content of the drug / substance present in the offending goods, but not the total weight of the goods which is relevant for determining the punishment Since the content of the drug / substance is only 10% of the 380 gms of the material seized, the appellant is punishable under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, but not under Section 21(c). : MADRAS HIGH COURT ;
2010-TIOL-430-CESTAT-MAD
M/s Meena Leather Exports Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: November 11, 2009)
Customs drawback burnishable upper finished leather is finished leather although a lesser protective coat with dye/pigment was applied confiscation and penalty set aside. :CHENNAI CESTAT; |