75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

July 2015

[2015-TIOL-1182-CESTAT-MUM] State Bank of India vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d

Since Rule 5(1) of the valuation rule is already struck down, order placing reliance on the same is liable to be set aside.

Facts:
The Appellant collects from their customers the amounts paid by them towards postage charges, courier charges etc. The Revenue is of the opinion that these charges are collected in course of rendering “Banking and Financial Services”.

Held:
Relying on the decision in the case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats P. Ltd. [2013] (29) STR 9 (Del) wherein Rule 5(1) of the Valuation Rule, 2006 had been struck down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Tribunal held that since the provisions on which reliance has been placed have been struck down, the order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2015-TIOL-1065-CESTAT-MUM] Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

[2015-TIOL-1184-CESTAT-MUM] Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. Employees Co-operative Consumers Society vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I