Legal Reference Library

M/s. Countech Systems Poonam and A. Bhattacharya (Partners) , M/s. Glory Hi-tech and Sudhir Dingra Director Versus CC, Faridabad Valuation - related person u/s 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - assessable value - extended period of limitation - demand of duty with interest - imposition of penalty - constitution of firm referred - Held that: - constitutions of the firms states that the appellant M/s.Glory Hitech is company and M/s.Countech Systems is partnership firm and the trading company is also private limited company. From the constitution, it is clear that the appellants and the trading company are not related to each other in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision in the case of Reliance Industries Products vs. CCE [2011 (3) TMI 704 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] relied upon where it was held that The three conditions are to be satisfied before it can be inferred the existing relationship namely, (i) there should be mutuality of interest, (ii) alleged related pers...

In a batch of appeals from different states, the Supreme Court ruled that a manufacturing company was not entitled to refund of commercial taxes if benefits under the law are not passed on to the ultimate consumer. Otherwise, there would be unjust enrichment, the court stated while hearing the appeals, led by Commissioner of Central Excise vs Addision & Co. Manufacturers had claimed refunds on taxes paid, invoking discounts such as those on excise and turnover tax. The authorities issued notices asking the firm to show that the duty had not been passed on to buyers.

High Court of Delhi Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors. MANU/DE/2284/2016 01.09.2016 Service Tax Power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually Present writ Petitions filed by two entities operating on-line platforms/web portals raise important questions involving powers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. In both writ petitions, applications were filed for interim directions to restrain DGCEI from taking any coercive steps against the entities and their officers. Scheme of provisions of Finance Act 1994 (FA), do not permit DGCEI or for that matter Service Tax Department (ST Department) to by-pass procedure as set out in Section 73A (3) and (4) of Act before going ahead with arrest of a person under Sections 90 and 91 of Act. Power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually. It...