In the instant case, Garodia Special Steels Ltd. (the Appellant) paid Service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency on Reverse Charge basis. However, during the audit of their unit, the reconciliation of ledger accounts with the Service Tax Returns revealed
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore relying on the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2006 (205) ELT 458 (Tri.-Mumbai)], held that the amount paid subsequent to the Order of the Adjudication Authority cannot be hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and as such, the Appellant is eligible for refund of the amount.
In view of judgment in L.H. Sugar case, since recipient of GTA services were liable to file return under Section 71Aof the Finance Act and Section 73 thereof, as amended by the Finance Act, 2003, did not refer to Section 71A of the Finance Act, hence, the Assessee was not covered by Section 73 of the Finance Act and the SCN is bad;
Amendment in Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Notification F. No. 1/40/2013-CL-V dated December 31, 2014 has made amendment in the Companies (Cost Records And Audit) Rules, 2014 through Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Amendment Rules, 2014 (the New Cost Audit Rules).
When there is no provision for filing a Second Application, the question of limitation does not arise. Further, the time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act is for the First Application and the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore there can be no limitation in respect of the proceedings pursuing the refund claim.
Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. (the Appellant) imported round Billets without payment of Customs duty for the manufacture of seamless tubes and pipes in the private bonded warehouse under the Customs license issued under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act)
Koya & Company Construction Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) was engaged in the manufacture and selling of PSC pipes. The Assessee cleared the PSC pipes on payment of Excise duty to KCCL, an interconnected undertaking.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (the Petitioner) had procured Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF or the fuel) from the refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) on payment of Excise duty. The fuel was initially stored at the terminal and thereafter it was sold at NITC, IGI Airport, Delhi.
It was further held by the Hon’ble High Court that there is difference between ‘condonation of delay’ and ‘exclusion of period’. The condonation of delay is in the discretion of the Court or Forum, whereas exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is a mandate under law,without leaving any scope for subjectivity.
In the instant case, the Department demanded Service tax for the periods 2005-06 to 2007-08 on Rs. 14,40,000/- paid by Astron Polymers (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) towards factory rent to one of its director. The Appellant denied liability to Service tax citing that levy was unconstitutional.
