CESTAT held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on Accordingly refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty of only 25% and not 100% leviable as duty along with interest and 25% penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of Order-in-Original.
J M Huber India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Commission Agent Service provided to foreign based entity for promoting/marketing their goods in India on consideration the activity of the Indian agent providing promotion/marketing, technical support, installation, commission, etc. for sale of goods of foreign based entities in India on commission basis amounts […]
Trenching pipeline installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in operation of the SEZ is admissible and the refund of the same is clearly admissible.
B M Autolink Vs C.C.E.-Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the fact is not under dispute that the appellant being a dealer purchase the vehicles from M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and subsequently sell the same to various customers. The transaction between M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the dealer and subsequently sale transaction […]
Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Vs Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that admittedly, Save and Except taking forward of the credit balance as on 30.06.2017, the appellant have not commenced production or manufacturing activities nor cleared any taxable goods on or after 1.7.2017. Further, debit by the appellant in the electronic […]
Minvesta Infotech Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is argued by the learned consultant that prior to introduction of GST, appellant would have been able to take re credit of the said amount when refund claims are denied as time-barred. After the introduction of GST, the appellant is not able […]
Kohler India Corporation Private Limited vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The facts of the case, in brief, are that a team of Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of appellant and documents related to Cenvat Credit availed on services received from various service providers were called. Upon the examination of the appellant’s records/ […]
ITC Sonar (A Unit of ITC Limited) Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) The only issue to be decided in this Appeal is whether the 3rd Proviso of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014, has got retrospective effect. I find that the said proviso was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014 […]
