Desmet Reagent Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant urges that there is no disability provided under Rule 3 of CCR that Cenvat Credit shall not be available, if the duty is paid in the case of import through utilization of DEPB scrips. Rather Rule 9 of CCR specifically provides that one […]
Sai Charan Tours & Travels Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The only issue before us is the mandate to produce the certificate insisted upon as condition for provisional release from among the prescriptions in the licencing notes pertaining to imported vehicles. The Tribunal, in Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, […]
Denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 and the department could not reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. Since the availability of credit had not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit could not be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services
CESTAT Delhi held that demand solely on the basis of the statement of the person who was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant is unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. are exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Notification No. 45/2010–ST dated 20.07.2010
CESTAT Kolkata held that as waste and scrap are not manufactured goods the legislature have consciously not made any provisions for reversal of any credit taken on duty paid inputs in case of clearance of waste and scrap
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Amar Cold Storage’s favor. DGFT clarification on DEPB entry Sr.No.2/66 prevails, reversing Customs Department.
Variety Lumbers Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The refund claim was admittedly not filed within the period of one year as prescribed in paragraph 2 of clause C of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 and the same stands filed within a period of one year from the date of order of Hon’ble […]
CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Chartered Accountant services for mere mention of Individual name after company name and Mere allegation in SCN cannot be a ground to deny Credit on bank charges
ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central GST (CESTAT Allahabad) The issue relates to inclusion of the amount collected by the appellant as Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS). Revenue’s contention is that the said collected amount would fall under the category of ‘Management Maintenance and Repair Services’ and would be liable to service tax separately. […]
