Jansons Textile Processors Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Salem (CESTAT Chennai) The facts of the matter are that appellants are manufacturers of cotton textile fabrics and made ups. They were clearing some of the final products on payment of duty as per Notification No.29/2004-CE and claimed exemption under notification No.30/2004-CE on other products. […]
Bombardier Transportation India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T Vadodara II (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that there is no dispute that the appellant had initially filed the refund application on 13.06.2011. It is this refund claim which was rejected by the sanctioning authority and the matter had travelled up to this Tribunal. This tribunal vide […]
Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case the cenvat credit was denied in respect of service received by the appellant from M/s. Indian Hotels Co.Ltd. on the pretext that the same is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service which is not specified under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, […]
Sushee Infra Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) We observe that the arrangement herein is that the appellant being a service provider for services as that of site formation, mining etc. were being awarded the tenders floated by various Government departments for receiving the aforesaid activities. Apparently and admittedly in such scenario […]
Laviosa Trimex Industries Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant is a CHA and they have issued the invoices showing the description as Custom House Agency Service Charges. Therefore, there is no dispute that the services on which the refund claim was made is indeed CHA Service. Moreover, even if any other service […]
CESTAT held that, SCN under Section 73(3) of CGST Ac was issued after Service Tax amount was paid by assessee, thus, demand for tax is not sustainable
CESTAT Bangalore held that notification no. 29/2018-CUS dated 01.03.2018 was published in the official gazette only on 06.03.2018 after it was digitally signed. Hence, the said notification is effect only from 06.03.2018 and not from 01.03.2018.
CESTAT Delhi upholds the absolute confiscation of disputed gold as it was reasonably believed to be smuggled and appellant failed to discharge his burden to prove that the golds was not smuggled gold.
Komatsu India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) It is not the case of the Revenue that what the appellant claimed was the refund of the duty paid and there is also no dispute that the appellant claimed only the security deposit made. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. […]
CESTAT held that giving options for availing a particular option is procedural requirement and on failure of same, assessee cannot be deprived of choosing any of option available in Rule 6(3)
