The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal stated that the goods stand manufactured by the appellant himself. There is also no dispute that the materials used by them were of duty paid and the fact that the appellant has not availed any credit of duty so paid is also admitted by the Revenue. Denial of drawback is on the sole ground that same would not be available to 100% EOU as against the express provisions of section 75 as also of the drawback Rules. As held by the Karnataka High Court in a case, the said stand of the Revenue cannot be appreciated and accepted.
As such, the appeal was allowed.
03-Jan-2017 read more
After the notification of demonetization by Government of India on 08.11.2016, the Tea Board has taken several initiatives for ensuring smooth payment of wages to the tea garden workers
23-Dec-2016 read more
The official Wholesale Price Index for ‘All Commodities’ (Base: 2004-05=100) for the month of November, 2016 rose by 0.1 percent to 183.1 (provisional) from 182.9 (provisional) for the previous month.
14-Dec-2016 read more
Proposal for bringing manufacture of “Other Tobacco Products” such as Khaini, Tobacco blended Pan Masala, Hookah or Gooduku tobacco, Zarda, Bidis and other chewable/eatable tobacco related items
07-Dec-2016 read more
The Delhi High Court held that the Central Government, though acting in public interest, seems to have gone about it in a haphazard manner. It claims that the FDCs for manufacture of which licences were issued by State Licensing Authority between September, 1988 and 1st October, 2012 without the same having approval of the Drugs Controller were wrongly granted such licences. However, instead of taking action for cancellation of said licences, the manufactures were asked to apply for licences to be Drugs Controller, while continuing to manufacture the drugs for which according to the Central Government licence was wrongly given. When such applications were received, instead of the same being considered by the Drugs Controller, who is vested with the power of approval, ten committees were constituted for considering the applications. After the said committees failed to examine all the applications, the Kokate Committee was constituted. The said Kokate Committee, instead of considering the applications for approval, went into the aspects of risk to consumers and therapeutic value and therapeutic justification and on receiving report whereof impugned Notifications were issued. Further, though the learned ASG controverted that any opportunity of hearing is required to be given before exercise of power under Section 26A of the Drugs Act but as the aforesaid narrative would show, the Central Government claims to have issued show cause notices after receipt of report of Kokate Committee and replies thereto having also been considered by the Kokate Committee. Thus, all 344 Notifications dated 10th March, 2016 purportedly in exercise of power under section 26A of the Drugs Act are found to have been issued without following the procedure statutorily prescribed to be followed prior to issuance thereof and resultantly it is held that the Notifications are not based on satisfaction of the Central Government prescribed to be on the advice of an in consultation with the Drugs Technology Advisory Board and Drugs Consultative Committee. Therefore, the said Notifications are quashed.
As such, the petitions succeeded.
01-Dec-2016 read more