CESTAT Delhi held that appellant is not involved in the arrangement/ facilitation of the supply of service and hence the appellant is not intermediary. The service provided by the appellant qualify for export and accordingly refund admissible under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Mumbai held that notification no. 27/2012/CE (NT) dated 18th June 2012 for operationalizing of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 include debiting of the claim amount before submission of application for the same. Refund rejected for failure to furnish proof of the availability of credit till the date of write off.
CESTAT Mumbai held that order passed without considering evidence relating to availment of depreciation under the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed.
Since none of the orders of the authorities below was at any discussion or finding regarding mensrea or unlawful gain to the appellant or attributing any knowledge on his part, therefore, the orders denying the duty exemption benefit and confirmed the differential duty of Rs.26,12,902/- with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.26,12,902/- along with interest under Section 114A was merely proceed on basis of speculations which was not justified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that expenses charged to the farmers towards harvesting and transportation of sugarcane is not chargeable to service tax under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services.
CESTAT Delhi held that as the appellant bonafidely, in view of their claim of Area based exemption, didn’t collected central excise duty, they are entitled to benefit of recalculation of demand on cum-duty basis as per explanation to section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that the intermediary does not include the person who supplies such goods or services or both on his own account. Thus, the person supplying the main supply on principal to principal basis cannot come within the ambit of “intermediary”.
CESTAT Delhi held that as the goods are not being notified under section 123 of the Act, it is onus on the revenue to establish the smuggled nature of the goods. In absence of any evidence, allegation of smuggled nature unsustainable.
TDK India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) Regarding Works Contract Service, it has been observed in the impugned order that w.e.f 01.07.2012, vide Notification No. 30/2012-ST, the reverse charge mechanism for Works Contract Service was introduced. I find that this Notification is applicable to individual/partnership firm and Hindu Undivided Family […]
Jaisawal Neco Industries Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved in this appeal is whether the provisions of Rule 3(5)(B) of CCR, 2004 are attracted in case of making a general provision in the books of account for slow moving/non moving inventory, without reducing the value of […]
