|
 The "place of removal" under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could only be the places of the manufacturer and can never be the buyers' place - CCE Vs Ispat Industries Ltd - 2015 TIOL 238 SC CX - Click to read a detailed impact analysis by G. Natarajan, Advocate.
 If there is a doubt or two interpretations are possible, one which favours the Department is to be resorted to while construing an exemption notification - M/s Meridian Industries Ltd Vs CCE - 2015 TIOL 262 SC CX.
Conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills is permissible only when the exporter is able to satisfy the Commissioner that "for reasons beyond his control" drawback was not claimed - Cargill India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs & CE, Visakhapatnam - II – 2015 TIOL 263 SC CUS.
A SSI manufacturer can simultaneously avail the exemption for his own branded goods without availing CENVAT and also avail CENVAT credit on third party branded goods on which full duty is paid - Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Nebulae Health Care Ltd - 2015 TIOL 261 SC CX.
Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) is not the same as Concrete Mix and accordingly RMC manufactured and used at site will not be entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 4/97-C.E – Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad – 2015 324 E.L.T. 646 (S.C.).
In the absence of Revenue establishing, under what circumstances, price escalation was given and whether that was a factor contributing to the depression of price at the time of clearance of the goods, the aforesaid additional amount received at a subsequent stage cannot be added for the purpose of arriving at the transaction value – Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Vs. M/s Hitkari Fibres Ltd. – 2015 TIOL 248 SC CX.
When amount advanced as loan by principal to job worker for purchasing machinery has not influenced trading relationship between them, normal price declared by job worker to be taken as transaction value - CCE Vs. Campco - 2015 324 ELT 27 S.C.
Provision of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules entitles Manufacturer/exporter to rebate of excise duties paid both on inputs as wells manufactured product when such finished products are exported on payment of duty - Spentex Industries Ltd Vs. CCE - 2015 TIOL 239 SC CX.
Exemption from payment of SAD is available even in cases where sales tax payment is deferred on sale of such goods in India - Commr of Customs Vs. Seiko Brushware India 2015 323 ELT 641 S.C.
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
When the Cabinet has taken decision to extend benefit of concessional CST to assessee beyond particular date, delay on part of Excise and Taxation Department to issue concerned notification does not disentitle eligible units from enjoying benefit of notification till date of notification by Department - Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - 2015 324 ELT 248 S.C.
..jpg)
