Utkarsh Chemicals Vs C.C. Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The common issue involved in all the appeals of the bunch as well as in the present appeals is of classification of goods declared by the appellant as Bed Cover and the revenue’s claim is that imported goods is ‘polyester woven fabric’ classifiable under CTH 54075490. Brief facts […]
CESTAT Delhi held that Policy Administration Charges is leviable to service tax with effect from 01.05.2011 via amendment to definition under section 65(105)(zx) of the Finance Act, wherein, the words ‘by an insurer including re-insurer carrying on life insurance business’ are substituted.
CESTAT Delhi held that in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the CENVAT Rules, before 01.04.2016, the Principal Manufacturer as an Input Service Distributor is facilitated to distribute cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on the input services to its Contract Manufacturing Unit working on job work basis.
CESTAT Chennai held that as duty was paid under protest period of limitation of one year envisaged in section 27(1B) of Customs Act 1962 will not apply even if refund claim made out of a consequence of judgment/ decree/ order.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty for non-payment of service tax not leviable when the assessee has proved reasonable cause for their bona fide belief of non-payment.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the same period excise duty is demanding alleging that activities undertaken by the appellants do amount to manufacture of Prefabricated building i.e. Green House and also service tax on activity of erection and commission of Greenhouse and Polyhouse at site. Accordingly, held that to ascertain the position, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
CESTAT Delhi uphold the order of revocation of registration of the authorized courier and forfeiture of security on account of actively violated the provisions of the act and rules by knowingly filing the bills of entry in the name of wrong consignee and also be mis-declaring the nature of the goods.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Factory in terms of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act includes any number of inputs within the same premises irrespective of the number of Central Excise registrations. Accordingly, CENVAT of such inputs available.
CESTAT Mumbai held that penalty under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be levied only if it is found that the concerned person have dealt with the goods in any manner which they knew are liable to confiscation. Role of co-noticee proved and hence penalty justifiable.
Meghmani Organics Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the duty and interest which were already paid by the appellant on pointing out by the audit. The only limited issue to be decided by me in the given facts and circumstances are that whether the appellant is […]
