Pradeep Jain - Chartered Accountant

PJ/Case Laws/09-10/07

CASE LAWS

Excise Section:-

Case: - Nicholas Piramal India Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of C.Ex. , Raigad

Citation: - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 91 (Tri. - Mumbai)

Issue: - Whether the demand of differential duty raised in case of physician’s samples of medicaments cleared, is sustainable?

Brief Facts: - The appellant cleared physician’s samples in special packing (catch cover) whereas same goods to buyers were not packed specially. The physician’s samples were valued at pro rata basis which excluded the cost of catch cover. The Lower authorities raised demand of duty as they held that cost of catch cover formed part of assessable value of the samples.

Appellant’s Contention: - Appellants relied upon Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) 1995 and submitted that the price of physician’s sample could not exceed what was notified under DPCO and hence it was not permissible to include the cost of catch cover in assessable value of physician’s sample.

Appellant contended that applicability of Rule 6 (b) (i) pf the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 to the goods in question was established through Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in Blue Cross Laboratory v/s CCE [2006 (202) ELT 182 (Tri.-LB)] Appellants also relied upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Softsule Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CCE, Mumbai [2006 (195) ELT 46 (Tri-Mumbai)] wherein it was held that such samples should be valued pro rata vis-a- vis the value of identical goods cleared by way of sale.

Respondent’s Contention: - The Respondent contended that appellants cannot rely upon DPCO which was applicable only to retail sale of pharmaceutical products. Respondent referred to clause (v) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which provides for input duty credit on packing materials on condition that cost of packing was included in the value of final product.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the decision in the case of Softsule Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE, Mumbai [2006 (195) ELT 46 (Tri-Mumbai)] was squarely applicable to the present case. It was clearly held therein that physician’s samples are meant for advertising the product and total cost of advertising is included in the cost of regular packs and therefore pro rata valuation based on price of regular box is proper. In this case also, the cost of special packing in which the physician’s samples are packed gets recovered from the customer in the cost of regular pack which would include all the expenses incurred by the manufacturer for selling the product in the market. Therefore, the cost of packing gets included in the price of physician’s sample which is being worked out on pro-rata basis on regular pack which includes the cost of special packing also. Therefore, there is no force in Revenue’s Contention. However, it is also held that DPCO or any notification issued thereunder did not support the appellant’s case as those proceedings were applicable only to retail sale of medicaments.

Decision: - Appeal allowed with consequential relief.

*****

Case: - M/s. Bengal Hammer Industries (P) Ltd. V/s. Commr. Of C. Ex., Kolkata -II

Citation: - 2009(240) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - Kolkata)

Issue: - Whether credit availed on fake documents without actual receipt of inputs be recoverable?

Brief Facts: - The appellant availed input credit on the basis of vague invoices without receiving duty paid raw materials. In proceedings, input credit was recovered along with imposition of interest and penalty.

Appellant’s Contention: - The appellants contended that there was no evidence to prove that inputs were not received. They pleaded that they had converted purchased goods to make it usable.

Respondent’s Contention: - Revenue relied upon the statement of dealers who had supplied inputs to appellant and which were against the appellant. It was contended that inputs procured were not usable in the appellant’s furnace. Procurement of raw material at a low price was impractical.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that if any fake documents are produced and there is no actual delivery of inputs, then evidence of non-receipt of inputs is required. The Cenvat credit taken on fake/forged documents is non est as there will be no valid document conveying right to Cenvat credit. It is the elementary principle of jurisprudence that legal fraud vitiates even judgments and Court orders. A transaction based on fraud continues to be tainted by the vice and the person committing the fraud is precluded from deriving any benefit and also the person who derives benefit. It was held that forgery or fraud renders a document itself as null and void having no effect due to its non-existence

The Tribunal held that the impugned order did not provide a complete picture of the investigation done. It does not indicate how the statements of suppliers were dealt with. It has not been indicated what happened when the statements were confronted to the appellant. The Furnace capacity, its size and structure to accommodate inputs needs to be examined. The chain of evidence proving no delivery requires a proper demonstration on order. It was held that the Adjudicating Authority had rightly discarded the retraction of Shri Haradhan Dutta for lack of any material evidence establishing truth of retraction. Therefore, matter requires to be remanded.

It was held that the order of the adjudicating authority requires throwing light on the extent of enquiry made, value of evidence gathered and appraisal thereof, confrontation of material gathered during enquiry against appellant following the principle of natural justice and arrive at a rational conclusion. Coming to abrupt conclusions without stating reasons defeats the spirit of justice.

It was further held that the documents used by appellant for availment of modvat if proved to have been obtained under fraud then it would not entitle anything to appellant. Fraud document is null & void having no effects whatsoever, due to its non existence to seek duty credit, that it shall in no way grant relief to the appellant. Once no delivery is proved at the end of the suppliers, merely making book entry by the appellant in statutory records as to receipt of the input that shall not grant modvat credit benefit to the appellant.

Decision: - The appeal has been disposed off.

*****

Case: - CCE, Pune v/s SKF India Ltd.

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 237 (SC)

Issue: - Conditions attracting levy of interest on excise duty not levied or short levied, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded under Sections 11A, 11AA and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Brief Facts: - Assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of ball bearings and textile machine parts. Their finished goods were sold on certain prices on payment of duty leviable on the prices at which goods were sold. Later on, there was revision of prices with retrospective effect. Accordingly, the assessee demanded the balance of higher prices from its customers by issuing supplementary invoices. At the same time, it also paid the differential duty on the goods sold earlier. Revenue contending that assessee was liable to pay interest on differential duty and demanded interest on delayed payment of duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as demanded imposition of penalty. Assessee contended that the payment of differential duty was made by it at the time of issuing supplementary invoices to the customers and therefore, there was no question of charging interest much less any penalty. The demand was confirmed the demand for interest and also imposed penalty. However, the Commissioner (A) set aside the order-in-original. Revenue has come in appeal against the order of Commissioner (A).

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Apex Court examined the provisions of Section 11A, Section 11AA and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. It was held that Section 11A (2B) provides that if the assessee pays unpaid duty and informs about it to the Central Excise officers, then he would not be given notice under sub-section (1). But Explanation 2 to the sub-section makes it expressly clear that such payment would not be exempt from interest chargeable under section 11AB, i.e., for the period from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid till the date of payment of the duty. Under the scheme of four sections (11A, 11AA, 11AB & 11AC) interest is leviable on delayed or deferred payment of duty for whatever reasons.

Therefore, it was held that payment of differential duty by assessee at the time of issuance of supplementary invoices to customers demanding the balance of the revised prices clearly falls under the provision of sub-section (2B) of section 11A of the Act.

The Apex Court held that the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v/s M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt Ltd would not fall under the category where excise was not paid or short paid as in that case duty was paid as soon as it was learnt that it was payable. The Commissioner (A) had relied upon this decision to set aside the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority in the present case.

It was noted that the assessee was able to demand from its customers the balance of higher prices by virtue of retrospective revision of prices. It, therefore, follows that at the time of sale the gods carried at higher value and those cleared on short payment of duty. The differential duty was paid only later when the assessee issued supplementary invoices to its customers demanding the balance amounts. Therefore, it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though it was completely unintended and without any element of deceit etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came under sub-section (2B) of section 11A and attracted levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. However, no question of imposition of any penalty arises.

Decision: - Impugned orders of the Tribunal and Commissioner (A) set aside. Order of the Assistant Commissioner so far it relates to interest is restored. Appeals allowed accordingly.

*****

Case: - CCE, Kolkatta-III v/s Paul Aquomin & Food (P) Ltd.

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 268 (CESTAT-Kol.)

Issue: - Whether addition of words “marketed by another company” on the label amount to use of brand name of another company and therefore lead to denial of benefit?

Brief Facts: - Respondents-assessee was manufacturing packages drinking water and on the label it was indicated that “marketed by Mother Diary, Calcutta”. They were claiming classification of their product under sub-heading 2201.11 attracting nil rate of duty. Revenue contended that use of the said words on the label was to be considered as branded goods containing the brand name of Mother Diary, Calcutta and accordingly, the said goods were classifiable under sub-heading 2201.19. The lower appellant authority held that the respondents did not use the brand name of “Mother Diary” and therefore their product was classifiable under sub-heading 2201.11 attracting nil rate of duty. Revenue has filed appeal against the said order.

Appellant’s Contentions: - Revenue has relied upon the cases of Super Delicacies (P) Ltd v/s Commissioner Of C. Ex., New Delhi [2006(199) ELT387(SC)] and CCE, Trichy v/s Grasim Industries Ltd [2005 (68) RLT 11 (SC)] in their support.

Respondent’s Contention: - Respondents supported the order passed by the lower appellant authority and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in C.C.EX, Kolkata-III v/s West Bengal Chemical Industries Ltd [2006 (200) ELT 68 (Tri.-Kolkata)].

Reasoning of Judgment: - It was held that the impugned goods were merely been marketed by Mother Diary and it cannot be said that the said goods did not contain the brand name of Mother Diary as their was no label or logo of Mother Diary printed on the label and it was nowhere indicated that product was being manufactured by Mother Diary and respondents had taken franchisee from them.

It was held that the case of West Bengal Chemical Industries Ltd was exactly similar to the respondent’s case in which it was held that the words “marketed by Mother Diary” contained in the label cannot be considered as making use of a brand name. It only means that the said product is being marketed by them.

It was held that the case of Super Delicacies (P) Ltd relied upon by the Revenue is different from the instant case the product therein was manufactured in the name and style of M.D.H. and the brand name was admittedly owned by M/s Mahashiyan Di Hatti Pvt Ltd and not by the appellant in that case. Further, it was held that the decision of Grasim Industries Ltd is also not supporting the Revenue case as it was held in that case that it is not necessary that the name or writing must always be a brand name or trade name in the sense normally understood.

Decision: - The order of the lower authority does not require any interference. Appeal rejected.

*****

Case: - Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad v/s Gaurav Agro Pipes

Citation: - 2009-TIOL-1254-CESTAT-MUM

Issue: - Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on the basis of covering letter.

Brief Facts: - Respondent-assessee had cleared certain quantity of its finished goods on payment of duty which were but were returned by their customer under cover of letters, not accompanied by the original invoices. The returned goods were processed and thereafter cleared on payment of duty. Respondent availed Cenvat credit on the returned goods on the strength of the covering letters. Revenue objected to taking of credit by Respondent. Original Authority denied credit to respondent on the ground that these letters were not valid documents for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Appellate Authority allowed credit to respondent on the ground that there was no dispute as to receipt of goods in their factory or its duty-paid nature. Appellate Authority also relied upon the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2005 (189) ELT 453 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and BAPL Industries Limited v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore [2006 (198) ELT 587 (Tri.-Chennai) and held that these citations are good precedent for allowing credit to respondent. Revenue has come in appeal against the said decision.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the cases relied upon by the lower appellate authority are different from respondents case as in the relied upon cases goods returned by the buyers were covered by original invoices which were the statutory documents prescribed for Cenvat credit purpose. But in the respondent’s case the goods returned were accompanied by covering letters and not by original invoices. As per Rule 9, such letters are not among the documents specified under Rule 9 for the purpose of availment of Cenvat Credit. Where the Rule prescribes a procedure to be followed by manufacturers of final products claiming Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods or input services, such procedure should invariably be followed. Those who are not willing to follow such procedure cannot legitimately claim the benefit. This basic tenet has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the lower appellate authority has decided the case regardless of this principle.

It was also held that the lower appellate authority has decided the case without any discussion and is not a speaking order.

Decision: - Order of Commissioner (A) set aside. Appeal allowed.

*****

Case: - CCE, Jaipur-II v/s Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. & Anr

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 271 (CESTAT-Del.)

Issue: - Whether Insurance and Freight is includible in transaction? Whether the deduction is to be given on actual basis or on equalized basis?

Brief facts: - Appellants are manufacturers of yarn. They removed there finished goods on “invoice” to their depots. The freight and insurance @ 1.3% of the value of goods was mentioned therein. From depots goods were sold to various customers and the rates mentioned in the invoices from the factory to depot and the depot to customers are the same. Appellant were not collecting any amount extra towards freight and insurance from the depot to the premises of the customers. The Adjudicating Authority held that the goods were being actually sold from the depot and depots should be considered as place of removal and as a result the amount of 1.3% of value of goods collected towards freight and insurance should form a part of assessable value and accordingly demanded duties with interest and imposed penalty.

In appeal, the Commissioner (A) held that charges were being collected by the respondents on equalized basis and relying upon the decision of the Apex court in VIP Industries Ltd v/s CC & CE, Aurangabad [2003 (57) RLT 6 (SC)] held that the freight from factory to depot is not includible in the assessable vale and allowed the appeals. Revenue has filed this appeal against the said order.

Appellant’s Contention: - Revenue contended that the facts of this case are different from the facts of the VIP Industries Ltd case. In that case the party was collecting equalized amount towards freight and insurance with a view to maintain a common price throughout India. The case of respondent was not a case of maintaining a uniform price throughout India. It was contended that respondents are not collecting any freight in respect of sales made at the factory gate which will go against the claim of equalized freight.

Appellant also relied upon the decisions in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd [2002 (53) RLT 883 (SC)] which is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Escorts JCB Ltd [2002 (53) RLT 1 (SC)] wherein it was held that “ownership in the property may not have relevance in so far as insurance of goods sold during transit is concerned and it would therefore, not be lawful to draw an inference of retention of ownership in the property sold by the seller merely by reason of the fact that the seller had insured such goods during transit to buyer”.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the invoices raised by the respondents to the depots are for the purpose of transfer and no sale is involved. It cannot be considered to be a case of factory recovering freight from the depots as both are parts of same legal entity. The actual sale is only from depots. During 28.09.96 to 30.06.00, it was admitted that the depot was also considered as place of removal and duty was payable based on the sale price at the depots, in respect of clearances made from the factory. That being the case, the exclusion of freight and insurance element from the factory gate to depot was not warranted. The facts of the case are different from the facts in the case of VIP Industries Ltd.

However, since the issue is pure interpretation of legal provision, no penalty is warranted.

Further, it was held that as definition of place of removal has undergone a change and the depots were not considered as place of removal for the period from 01.07.00 to 30.06.03, there is no justification to include the amount collected towards freight and insurance during this period. However, during this period, the amount of deduction available should be restricted to the actual amount incurred. To enable the same, matter is remanded for quantifying the deduction.

Decision: - Appeals disposed off accordingly.

*****

Case: - Sanchit Polymers & Ors v/s CCE & C, Daman

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 370 (CESTAT-Ahmd.)

Issue: - Whether the raw material taken out and stored in adjacent premises without permission attracts penal provisions? Whether such goods can be confiscated?

Brief Facts: - Appellants had stored part of raw material in adjacent factory in the same compound due to lack of space. The raw material was accounted in the RG 23 A Part-I and credit was taken in RG 23 A Part-II. During the visit of central excise officers, when this was noticed, the goods were confiscated and proceedings initiated against the appellants. Appellants were given option to redeem goods after payment of redemption fine and penalties were also imposed. No demand of duty was made. In appeal, the Commissioner (A) reduced the redemption fine and penalties on appellant no. 1 & 2.

Appellant’s Contention: - It was contended that when there is no duty demand, the imposition of penalty or confiscation of the goods were not warranted. Appellants relied upon the case of M/s Godrej Soaps [2004 (65) RLT 449 (CESTAT-LB)].

Appellants, alternatively submitted that stocking of raw material in adjacent premises were only on practical difficulties inasmuch as the appellants were not having enough space. It was submitted that the adjacent premises were in the same compound and the security guard for the whole compound at the gate was also one. It was only a procedural and technical breach of law and should not be made the basis for imposing penalty or for confiscating goods with such high redemption fine.

Respondent’s Contention: - Revenue contended that whenever the goods are taken out of the licensed premises, the appellants are required to follow the requisite procedure, as prescribed in Central Excise Rules as also clarified in Board Circular no. 206/40/96-CX dated 01.05.96. The requisite permission is required to be obtained and undertaking is required to be given. Admittedly the appellants have not followed the above procedure, as such, he justifies imposition of redemption fine and penalties.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that the part of raw material was stored in the premises of the other unit on account of the place constraint. There were no mala fide attributable to the appellant. In fact, no duty demand was raised against them in respect of the said goods. As such, there was no justification in confiscation of raw material, admittedly stored in the premises of the adjacent factory, which is situated in the same compound. Impugned order set aside.

Further, it was held that the penalty imposed upon M/s. Sanchit Polymers is not maintainable. The provisions of sub Rule 25(1) (d), which provides for imposition of penalty for contravention the Rules with intent to evade duty, are not applicable. Such contravention would be covered under the provisions of Rule 27. However, there was breach of law on the part of appellant; therefore some penalty was required to be imposed upon them. Accordingly, penalty reduced on M/s. Sanchit Polymers in terms of Rule 27.

Regarding penalty on in the premises of which goods were stored is not warranted as they did not play any role to invite penalty. Penalties imposed on them set aside.

Decision: - Appeals allowed accordingly.

*****

Service Tax Section: -

Case: - M/s Sainik Mining & Allied Service Ltd v/s Commr of C.E, Cus & S Tax, BBSR-II

Citation: - 2009-TIOL-1252-CESTAT-KOL

Issue: - Whether extraction and transfer of coal, mechanical transfer and transportation of coal falls under Cargo Handling service or Mining services? Whether hiring of loaders are liable to service tax?

Brief Facts: - Appellant entered into contracts with coalfields authorities for extraction and transfer of coal, mechanical transfer and transportation of coal for further processing and hiring of pay loaders. Revenue demanded service tax by contending that these services were Cargo Handling Services. The Commissioner (A) dropped the demand for extraction and transfer of coal on the ground that activity undertaken by Appellant was mining service and the same was taxable w.e.f. 01.06.07, vide Order dated 27.02.08. No appeal was filed by Revenue against this order. Further, the service tax is demanded on hiring of loaders.

For mechanical transfer and transportation of coal for further processing, The Commissioner (A) set aside the demand by relying upon the Tribunal’s decision in appellant’s own case [2008-TIOL-77-CESTAT-KOL] in which it was held that activity undertaken by appellant was not cargo handling services.

Appellant’s Contention: - Appellant has re-iterated the findings of the Commissioner (A) for the first and second contract. For the third contract for hiring of pay loaders, appellants have conceded that the Tribunal in the case of M/s Gajanand Agarwal v/s CCEx, BBSR [2008-TIOL-2076-CESTAT-KOL] has held in favour of Revenue. Appellant has also contended that the demand is time barred.

Respondent’s Contention: - Revenue contended that appellants are providing Cargo Handling Services which are taxable and they are liable to pay the amount in dispute.

Reasoning of Judgment: - It was found that for extraction and transfer of coal, the Commissioner (A) has dropped the demand by treating the service as mining service. For mechanical transfer and transportation of coal for further processing, the Tribunal has held in earlier case of appellant’s that said service was mining service and demand was set aside therein.

For hiring of pay loaders, it was found that the Tribunal’s decision in case of M/s Gajanand Agarwal is against the appellant. The demand raised is for Rs. 11 Lakhs. Appellant directed to pre-deposit Rs. 11 Lakhs within 8 weeks. On deposition of this amount, pre-deposit of remaining amount will be waived and recovery of the same stayed during pendency of appeal.

Decision: - Pre-deposit ordered and stay granted.

*****

Case: - CCE, Vadodara v/s Videocon Industries Ltd

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 468 (CESTAT-Ahmd.)

Issue: - Whether the service tax paid on transportation of steel, cement for construction is eligible for taking Cenvat credit?

Brief Facts: - Respondent-assessee availed the service of Goods transport operator for transportation of iron, steel and cement used by them in civil work of the new plant. Respondents took Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on this service. Both the lower authorities have held that Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTO service was admissible to respondents. Revenue has filed this appeal against this order.

Appellant’s Contention: - Revenue contended that GTO service cannot be considered to have been used for setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs etc. in terms of the definition of input service in the Cenvat Credit Rules. The transportation is altogether a different class of service and therefore not admissible.

Respondent’s Contention: - Respondent argued that respondents are eligible. The definition of input service for the purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory and also the service tax paid on inner transportation of inputs or capital goods.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that service tax paid on GTO service in respect of cement, steel etc brought for construction clearly related to setting up of the factory and is covered by definition. Therefore, respondents are eligible for the same.

Decision: - Appeal dismissed.

*****

Case: - Santosh Associates v/s CST, Ahmedabad

Citation: - 2009 (93) RLT 348 (CESTAT-Ahmd.)

Issue: - What would be the taxable event, when service is provided or when payment in lieu of service is received?

Brief Facts: - Appellants provide construction services. Appellants had availed Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the quarter ending March 2006 and simultaneously availed benefit of abatement of 67% as per Notification No. 18/2005-ST dated 07.06.05. The said Notification was rescinded and in its place Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.06 was issued which did not provide for availment of Cenvat credit if abatement was claimed. Revenue raised demand of Cenvat credit availed on the ground that it was not admissible to appellants in view of the provisions of Notification No. 01/2006-ST. Demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Appellants have filed appeal.

Appellant’s Contention: - Appellants contended that the services were rendered during January and February 2006 and only the payment was received in March 2006. Since the taxable event occurred during the period prior to issue of Notification No. 01/2006-ST and during the period of rendering taxable service, they have received input/input services and at that time they were eligible for availing Cenvat credit, the credit was rightly taken. Appellant’ s have further contended that in respect of service tax imposed on commercial training, the Board had issued instructions that wherever services rendered during the period prior to imposition of service tax and also subsequently, the tax should be collected on proportionate basis. Appellants have relied upon the decision in the cases of Reliance Industries Ltd [2008 (85) RLT 365 (CESTAT-Ahmd.)], Art Leasing Ltd. [2007 (83) RLT 597 (CESTAT-Ban.)] and Matsushita TV & Audio India Ltd [2006 (1) STR 162 (Tri.-Del)].

Respondent’s Contention: - Revenue contended that at the time of payment of service tax, the Notification which was in existence was Notification No. 01/2006-ST and therefore, service tax should have been paid on the basis of that Notification only.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Tribunal held that for the period prior to issuance of Notification No. 01/2006-ST, by virtue of Notification No. 18/2005-ST appellant were entitled to abatement as well as Cenvat credit and for the subsequent period to issuance of Notification No. 01/2006-ST in respect of services rendered, appellant was not entitled to both benefits. This is supported by Board’s instructions at the time of introduction of services for commercial training, wherein the view taken is that in respect of services rendered continuously and part of service rendered prior to imposition, proportionate tax shall be leviable.

The decision of Art Leasing Ltd. is applicable in appellant’s case wherein it was held that taxable event had already occurred when the hire purchase contract was entered and installment payment started. It was also held therein that installments are only obligation of hirer and rate of services will be the rate prevailing on the date on which contract is entered into. Applying the same analogy in the appellant’s case, it is held that appellants were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 18/2005-ST.

Decision: - Appeal allowed with consequential benefits.

*****

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/09-10/07

Post a Comment

Query