In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide its Order dated April 30, 2013 directed the Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (the Appellant) to make pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on July 15, 2013.
In the instant case, Jubiliant Engineering (the Appellant) was 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) engaged in manufacturing of valve assemblies falling under the Chapter 8481 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Though the Appellant was not required to pay duty on the export goods
In the present case, Tata Chemicals Ltd. (the Appellant) filed eleven Refund claims amounting to Rs. 1,26,78,767/- during the period September 1997 to December 1999. However, the Refund claims were initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
Suncity Art Exporters (the Appellant) were exporters of handicrafts and were entitled to Refund of Service tax paid on the various specified input services in terms of Notification No. 17/09-ST dated July 7, 2009.
In the instant case, Kuttukaran Trading Ventures (the Assessee) was engaged in the business of reconditioning engines and parts thereof and repairs of other parts of vehicles of all brands. The Assessee did not have any authorization from any manufacturer of vehicles/ parts for providing post-sale service to buyers.
The issue of taxability of out-of-pocket expenses has always been a matter of litigation. Before April, 2006 there was no specific provision to this effect. However, from April 19, 2006 onwards, with the introduction of the Valuation Rules, Service tax is applicable on gross consideration including all expenses barring the expenses incurred as pure agent.
It is often seen that some Appellate orders in Vat/Income Tax/Excise/Service Tax are accepted by the Administrative Authorities while in other SIMILAR matters Appeals are filed in the Higher Forums i.e. Tribunals/High Courts. Are these arbitrary actions of the Administrative Officials justifiable?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is leviable under section 271D when there has been repeated violations of section 269SS on the ground that the creditors are genuine persons and there was no revenue loss to the Exchequer
Only one IEC shall be issued against a single PAN. Multiple IECs issued against a single PAN will be deactivated suo-moto after 31.03.2015.
New Upgraded and Secure Portal for E-Filing of Applications for Foreign Direct Investment Launched Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance launched here today a new upgraded and secure user friendly web site for filing and processing of applications for Foreign Direct Investment (FD) requiring Government approval. Presently the applications are filed online at www.fipbindia.com […]
