In the instant case, the Revenue alleged violation of conditions of duty-free import against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Petitioner) and issued demand notice cum adjudication order (Impugned Demand) directing the Petitioner to pay Central Excise and Customs duties along
PROVIDED ALSO that the Commissioner may, after giving to the dealer an opportunity of being heard, may direct the dealer to deposit an amount deemed reasonable, out of the amount under dispute, before such objection is entertained.
In the instant case, shipping agent of the Atlantic Shipping (P.) Ltd. (the Respondent) paid the provisionally assessed Customs duty on estimated quantity of bunker fuel to be consumed during the coastal run.
Arvind Ltd. was a composite textile mill engaged in the manufacture of 100% cotton fabrics which were cleared for export as well as for home consumption. The Appellant was simultaneously availing exemption under Notification No.29/2004- CE-Tariff dated July 9, 2004 (“the Notification No.29/2004”) and 30/2004-CE‑Tariff dated July 9, 2004 .
The Hon’ble CESTAT observed that Rule 2(a) of the Credit Rules provide that the condition for availing Cenvat credit on capital goods is their use within the factory of the manufacturer of final products. It was held that there was no requirement under the Credit Rules that the capital goods must be installed within the factory of production.
Cenvat Credit of the Service tax wrongly paid under reverse charge is nothing but refund of the erroneously paid Service tax which cannot be denied Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2014-TIOL-1540-CESTAT-MUM] Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is engaged in the business of providing General insurance […]
Excess Service tax paid can be adjusted with future Service Tax liability and cannot be denied on the ground of not having centralised registration or can be subjected to monetary limit. General Manager (CMTS) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2014 (8) TMI 589 – CESTAT NEW DELHI] General Manager (CMTS) (“the Appellant”) are engaged in […]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi also relied upon the Hari Chemical case wherein it was held that only because in his books of accounts entries are made for taking of the credit in terms of one provision of the Rules, the same if ultimately found to be inapplicable and return of the credit is taken effect, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any legal bar in claiming the exemption under another rule. Thus, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed that though the Assessee has taken credit on input service during the period but have not utilized the same and have reversed later on, benefit of the SSI Exemption Notification cannot be denied and decided against Revenue.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the CBEC vide its Notification No. 17/2014-ST dated August 20, 2014 has amended the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012- ST dated June 20, 2012 (“the Mega Exemption Notification”) by inserting a new Entry No. 5A after Entry No. 5 which reads […]
We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III [2014-TIOL-1452-HC-MUM-ST]on following issue: Issue: Whether Cenvat credit is available to provider of Cellular Mobile Service on Tower Parts & Pre-fabricated buildings? Facts & Background: Bharti […]
