CESTAT Ahmedabad

Personal Penalty on director for clearance of taxable goods as exempt is unwarranted in absence of their role in the same

C.C.E. Vs M/s Avi Sales Pvt Ltd. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

From the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside....

Read More

Lessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on capital goods on which lessor has availed depreciation U/s. 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961

Kapstone Paper and Packaging Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.Tax,Surat (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely paper and paperboard falling Chapter Heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed CENVAT credit of Rs.39,50,149/- on capital goods, procured on lease basis from one M/s B.G. India Energy Services P...

Read More

Penalty on Firms than No separate penalty on partners

Sharp Engineers Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CETAT Ahmedabad)

Once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity as there is no difference between the partner and the partnership firm....

Read More

Chartered Accountants Services eligible for Input / Cenvat Credit

M/s Essar Oil Ltd Vs Commissioners of Central Excise (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs DRP Malleables Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant Service is specifically covered under the scope of input service and the assessee is eligible for availing credit....

Read More

Limitation period if order been pasted at Factory Gate after closure

M/s Aafloat Textiles (India) Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Vapi (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

It is stated that all the operations and activities at the factory came to standstill. There was closure notice and the factory was closed. It is, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have been aware of an order stated to be pasted on its factory gate. ...

Read More

No duty on goods supply based on international competitive biddings

M/s Dressers Rand India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Assessees were engaged in the manufacture of Gas Compressor package, classifiable under Sub-heading No.8414.86 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied Gas Compressors to M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) on the basis of the tenders...

Read More

Evidence on record should prevail over the statement

M/s Narmada Fabrics (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Surat-II (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant....

Read More

Penalty justified for removal of Machinery without CENVAT reversal

M/s Sidmak Laboratories (India) Pvt Limited Vs Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-DAMAN (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

I find that the appellant shifted the machinery from their registered premises without reversal of the credit. The Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter, the appellant reversed the credit....

Read More

Cenvat on bills in HO name despite non registration as ISD

Prince Swr Systems Pvt Limited Vs Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VAPI (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

The appellant availed CENVAT credit during the period from June 2009 to March 2010 on the service tax paid on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of their head office. The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant is only manufacturing unit of the head office....

Read More

Intimating dept on adjustment of excess ST paid is only procedural

M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

In the case of M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara, it was held that the requirement under Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to intimate the department regarding adjustment of excess service tax paid...

Read More
Page 1 of 812345...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,311)
Company Law (3,196)
Custom Duty (6,363)
DGFT (3,314)
Excise Duty (3,978)
Fema / RBI (3,110)
Finance (3,276)
Income Tax (24,146)
SEBI (2,644)
Service Tax (3,247)

Search Posts by Date

March 2017
« Feb