Live issues in Litigation
YESTERDAY we brought you some live issues with the CBEC offices, which are under litigation and the Board's view seems to be against the assessee in all these cases. Maybe they are waiting for a valuable case to appeal further.
Today we bring you some more.
1. Whether under section 6 of the Coal Mines Act, the authorities had the power to collect only additional duty over and above excise duty on the excisable goods and therefore, any notification issued under section 6 of the Coal Mines Act would not permit the customs authorities to collect any such additional duty on the imported goods and no such Notification issued under Section 7 of the Coal Mines Act.
2. The issue relates to interpretation of Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 that prescribe for recovery of drawback paid erroneously. The limited point involved is whether a normal and reasonable period of limitation would apply for invoking action under Rule 16 in the absence of any limitation period prescribed in the Rule.
3. The dispute with the EOU is, whether the Education Cess as well as Secondary and Higher Education Cess could be levied and collected again on the sum total of Basic Customs Duty, Additional Customs Duty and Education Cess and BCD and ACD under proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act or not as regards DTA clearance made by EOU.
4. Whether "Extra Charges" (COCO Charges) collected by the assessee from their customers through their Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) outlet (Who received the good from the depot of the Company as Stock Transfer) is includible in the normal transaction value Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 for the Purpose of charging duty of Excise.
5. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing exemption of NCCD under Notification 108/95 dated 28-08-1995. NCCD is not a duty under section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise Act, 1957 as to get entitlement of exemption under the said notification.
6. Whether the value of goods/ consumables used for providing photography services forms a part of value of taxable service or not.
7. Whether the maintenance of Buffer Stock by the taxpayer under the provisions of the Sugar Development Fund Act, 1985 amounts to rendering taxable service of storage and warehousing, as defined under section 65(102) and 65 (105) (zza).
8. Whether the demand for recovery of duty on CENVAT availed HDPE and paper bags used by the assessee in the packing of cement and which got damaged during the course of packing is sustainable or not as claimed by the assessee for the reason that the damaged bags are to be treated as waste and scrap, which is not required to be cleared on payment of duty.
9. Whether the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003 is admissible to materials such as patches etc., consumed while re-treading of tyres and whether to exclude value of such materials while arriving at the value of taxable service under Maintenance and Repair Services for payment of Service Tax.
10. Whether the cost of battery bought out from the local market and cleared as part of UPSS from Branch offices/sales was liable to included in the assessable value.
11. Whether Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) Charges paid to third party inspecting agency by the manufacturer and later reimbursed by the buyer is includible in the assessable value after 01.07.2000 or not.
12. Whether the provisions of Notification No. 10/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 entitles concessional rate of Central Excise Duty are mandatory or not.
13. Whether freight and Insurance charges are includible in assessable value for payment of duty.
14. Whether while calculating the quantum of clearance of the goods in DTA, 50% of the FOB value of exports i.e. physical exports is to be taken into consideration, without taking into account the value of deemed export or otherwise.
15. Whether the cost of ‘Master Tape' and royalty is to be included in the Assessable value of the Audio Cassettes manufactured and cleared by the party.
16. Whether clearances by 100% EOU to DTA against Foreign Exchange were exempt without any proof that consideration for the goods were obtained in foreign exchange.
17. Whether duty is payable as per Section 4 (3) (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, on the sales tax collected, but not actually paid to the Sales Tax Department, and which was allowed to be retained by virtue of the packaged incentive scheme given by the Sales Tax Department.
18. Clearance of physician samples on payment of duty by adopting the transaction value of 110% of cost of production instead of clearing the same on the basis of MRP value in terms of Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.