Since notification issued under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not provide any period of limitation for a claim for rebate, rebate claim cannot be dismissed as time-barred applying provisions of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA JSL Lifestyle Ltd. v. Union of India S.J.… Read More »
Dealers of SIM Cards /Recharge vouchers cannot be regarded as recipients of telecom services provided by telecom companies; hence, said dealers cannot take input service credit of service tax paid by telecom companies CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH Omar Agencies (Hutch) v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND R.K. SINGH, TECHNICAL MEMBER… Read More »
Issue Assessee manufactured ‘Nizral Shampoo’ containing 2 per cent Ketoconazole and classified same as ‘medicament’ under Heading 3003.10 (duty 16 per cent) . Department argued that it was a mere normal shampoo and ‘preparation for use on hair’ and therefore, liable to duty at 24 per cent under Heading 3305.99 HELD : Product was classifiable… Read More »
Mere because, as per bond, assessee had agreed to pay interest at 24 per cent per annum, that would not take away right of Supreme Court to reduce rate of interest if ends of justice so warrant; hence, on facts, rate was reduced to 9 per cent SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad… Read More »
CENVAT CREDIT (FOURTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2015 – AMENDMENT IN RULE 6 NOTIFICATION NO.21/2015-C.E. (N.T.), DATED 7-10-2015 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to… Read More »
Where assessee’s entire sales are below cost owing to international market prices being very low, sales to related parties cannot be value on basis of ‘cost plus method’ and are to be valued as per best judgment principle at ‘price charged from unrelated parties’ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central… Read More »
CIRCULAR NO. 1007/14/2015-CX, F.No. 103/01/2015-CX-3 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS NEW DELHI Dated: October 12, 2015 To Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (All) Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (holding charge of Chief Commissioner) (All) Web… Read More »
(RMC) is not same as Concrete Mix (CM); hence, exemption under Notification No. 4/CE dated 1-3-1997 available on on-site manufacture of CM for use in construction, cannot be extended to RMC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise A.K. SIKRI AND ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6930-6931… Read More »
whether the manufacturer/exporter is entitled to rebate of the excise duty paid both on the inputs and on the manufactured product, when excise duty is paid on a manufactured product and also on the inputs which have gone into manufacturing the product and such manufactured product is exported? Word “or” in Rule 18 of the… Read More »
Bank Charges in relation to business of manufacture and export of goods, whether pertaining prior to manufacture or after manufacture, are eligible for credit under rule 2(l) or refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH Commissioner of Central Excise, Puna-I v. Rosy Blue (India) (P.) Ltd. M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND C.J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL… Read More »