CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT credit on the ‘inputs’ used in the manufacture of their final products, namely, Rerolled products, MS Flat/Bar, MS Angle, MS Channel, MS Round etc which is cleared on payment of central excise duty, is duly available.
CESTAT held that if a service tax refund request coincides with a period in which a demand has been established, taxpayer will only be eligible for a refund if demand is overturned.
CESTAT ruled that appellant is entitled to offset underpaid service tax against excess tax paid in subsequent months/quarters, in accordance with Rule 6 (4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential duty demand for extended period of limitation unsustainable in absence of suppression of fact. Accordingly, interest and penalty for extended period set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong supply made by the supplier merely supported by e-mails, the authenticity of which were never proved before the Adjudicating Authority, is unacceptable.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that all the evidence leads to the conclusion that duty element is treated as an expenditure and not as receivables. Accordingly, as the duty incidence is passed on and therefore hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. need to be filed within a period of one year from the date of payment of SAD.
CESTAT held that services such as Courier Agency, Exhibition, Insurance, Internet fall under Input Service, thus qualifies for Cenvat credit
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty demand unsustainable as invoices for purchase of raw materials and invoices for clearances of finished products indicate that the appellant is an independent manufacturer.
Held that the ceiling of 20% under Rule 6(3)(c) is not applicable to capital goods and 17 input services specified under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
