|
 Non-compete fees and Trademark licence fees are additional considerations and are includible in the assessable value -Godrej Consumer Products Ltd vs CCE, Indore - 2014 - TIOL - 878 - CESTAT - MUM.
 Requirement of affixing MRP is only meant for goods required to be sold in India and it has nothing to do with the goods exported - Modi Bakers vs CCE - 2014 - TIOL - 1018 - CESTAT - MUM.
By failing to insure the imported materials which were deposited in the warehouse for that part of the value representing Customs duty on the imported goods, when it’s a condition of the licence and warehousing bond there is a clear breach of Sections 58 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Sandoz Pvt Ltd vs CCE - 2014 - TIOL - 933 - CESTAT - MUM.
Job worker is a 'manufacturer' and hence the appellant factory cannot be treated as a service provider rendering exempted/non-taxable service for the manufacturing activity – Credit taken on input services for job work activity allowed - M/s JBF Industries Vs CCE, VAPI -2014 - TIOL - 972 - CESTAT - AHM.
When the case is settled by the Settlement Commission the allegation of suppression of facts remains inconclusive and hence the assessee are entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid - CCE, Pune I vs Tetra Pack (India) Pvt Ltd - 2014 - TIOL - 1096 - CESTAT - MUM.
Mere reliance on note books/ diaries or statements cannot be considered as enough evidence for clandestine manufacture and clearances - M/s Mahesh Silk Mills, Surat & M/s Chandan Prints vs CCE, Mumbai - 2014 - TIOL - 1032 - CESTAT - AHM.
|
