Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant had contended before the authorities below that as per Section 83 (3) of Chapter VII , Section 83 (5) of Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010, Section 94 of the Finance Act, 2004, Section 138 & Section 139 of the Finance Act, 2007 […]
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand of duty in respect of semifinished goods cannot sustain. Accordingly, the duty paid thereon is duly refundable.
CESTAT Delhi held that service charges for pre-payment or foreclosure of loan amount by the customer cannot be treated as taxable service and is not chargeable to service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that Saccharomyces Boulardii being yeast is classifiable under chapter 21 and not under CTH 29183090 as Carboxylic acid.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act would not be applicable to amounts paid under mistake of law.
CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
CESTAT Mumbai held that non-reflection of Cenvat Credit in ST-3 return cannot be ground to deny refund of unutilized cenvat credit.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value merely on the basis of NIDB (National Import Database) data without any other independent evidence is not acceptable.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzh) was added on 01/07/2010, builder/ developer/ promoter getting residential complex constructed for his customer and entering into individual agreements will be treated as deemed provider of construction of residential complex service. Accordingly, no liability of service tax will arise prior to 01/07/2010.
CESTAT Chennai held that services rendered to the domestic vendors by procuring orders from foreign companies rendered are classifiable under Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC) and not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
