Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Bsnl vs C.C.E Rohtak on 15 April, 2015

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Cce&Cst, New Delhi on 31 December, 2015

Although, we do not find any legal basis cited in the said judgment to allow adjustment of duty short paid out of the duty paid in excess, the fact remains that this judgment has been passed in the appellants own case and based on that judgment the appellant has pleaded that it should be allowed to adjust the said short payment of Rs.48,20,754/- out of the excess service tax paid during the period 2004-05. We are not entirely in agreement with the CESTAT observation quoted above but we also not relying upon the said judgment in this case. The very fact that such a pleading has been made and the amount has actually been paid in excess in 2004-05 shows the bonafies of the appellant. In these circumstances, we are unable to discern any evidence which would even suggest that there was any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with regard to the short payment of the said amount of duty.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

J S W Steel Ltd vs Salem on 29 April, 2019

"12. Plain reading of Rule 8, implies that the value of 110% has to be adopted for excisable goods which are not sold but used for consumption in the production or manufacture of other articles. The impugned goods are not used by the JSW themselves but it is so used for utilization in various expansion projects (including civilworks) and not in the production or manufacture of other articles. The identical goods also are found to have been sold to JSW to other independent buyers, adopting the 'Price'at arm's length. Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of BSNL vs CCE, Haldia as reported in 2007 (215) ELT 127 (Tri) had held, Valuation (Central Excise)-Captive Consumption-Mere supply of goods without any manufacture does not amount to captive consumption- Determination of value by addition of 15 per cent, rejected Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. Respectfully following the same, I am of the view that Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 is not applicable as such to the case at hand.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharti Hexacom Ltd vs Jaipur-I on 18 July, 2018

(a) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in case of BSNL Vs. CCE (2006) 3SCC 1, held that whether it is a sale or a service would depend on the intention of the dealing 6 E/53954/2014 parties and the transaction of SIM may involve both the aspects of sale and service, i.e., activation of SIM could be service and value of physical SIM could be subject of sales tax - This is a raw interpretation, the base contention and this confusion continued for many years.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Hmt Machine Tools Ltd vs Cc,Ce&St, Hyderabad-I on 1 January, 2016

3. The learned AR Shri Prasad reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellants ought to have informed the Department and reversed the credit. That the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly upheld the demand. As seen from the facts, it is correct that the show-cause notice has been issued beyond the period prescribed by law. There is no evidence to establish any intention to evade payment of duty on the part of appellant, which is a public sector undertaking. Following the ratio laid down in the case of BSNL (supra), I am of the view that the demand is not sustainable being time barred. The issue of limitation having been answered in favour of the assessee, I do not find it necessary to enter into the issue of merits. In the result, the impugned order is set aside being time-barred. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Allahabad on 19 November, 2018

3. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands decided by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case. Reference can be made to the decision reported as BSNL vs. Commissioner 2009 (14) S.T.R. 699 (Tri.) as also to another decision reported as BSNL 2014 (34) S.T.R. 378 (Tri.-Chennai). Inasmuch as the issue stands decided by the above referred decision in the same assessee's case, by following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant (Dictated & Pronounced in Court) Sd/- Sd/-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next