From Supreme Court - Recent Cases
SERVICE Tax - quantum of tax involved is only about Rs.59,000/- and there is a delay of 208 days in filing SLP. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.:
As recorded by the Supreme Court, the tax amount in this SLP by the Government is Rs. 59,000. How did this case reach the Supreme Court? As per the Board's litigation policy, the case should not be taken to Supreme Court if the tax involved is less than Rs. 25 lakh. In a judgement delivered on 8th October 2013 , the Supreme Court observed,
"Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers' money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it.
And the Government filed this SLP for a paltry sum of Rs. 59,000 and that too with a delay of 208 days. And this is filed in 2016 when so much of publicity is made about ‘ease of doing business', litigation policy and such high sounding jargon. And the Government is seriously advocating GST to make life more easy for the taxpayers. And the Government was represented in the Supreme Court by the Attorney General and four advocates. What a way to spend the taxpayers' money!
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Maruthamalai Murugan Industries -
Central Excise - Demand - Company in Liquidation - No point in deciding appeal on merits:
official liquidator informs that assets of the company have been disposed of. Since there is no money for payment, even if this appeal is allowed and the Excise Department is held entitled to recover the amount, it would not be in a position to recover any amount from the company in liquidation. Therefore, it is not deemed proper to go into the merits of this appeal because of the aforesaid reason.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Vidarbha Veneer Industries -
Central Excise - Job work - valuation - whether the goods returned from the premises of job worker after processing under Rule 12B , subjected to further manufacturing process like cutting to short length, stitching ends, ironing, folding and packing resulting in enhancement the value of product, are to be assessed at transaction value (value at which assessee cleared the goods to the customer) or at cost of grey fabric and job charges in terms of judgment in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints. Tribunal in the impugned judgment has arrived at a finding that after receiving the product from job worker, at whose end excise duty is duly paid, the assessee simply cuts them into Dhotis and, therefore, in terms of Rule 12(B) read with Circular No. 557/53/2000-CX dated 03.11.2000, it will continue to be classifiable as fabric under Chapter 52/54/55 and such a process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. In that process, definitely there is value addition but in terms of Rule 12B and the Board's Circular, the value to be adopted is only the value at the end of the job workers premises. There is no merit in the demand of the revenue for fixing the duty liability on the sale value of the goods sold by the appellant. That is completely against the provisions of Rule 12B read with Board's Circular.