Chashmita Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant is seeking benefit of Notification No. 20/2003-ST in respect of the service provided by them in respect of AVETCS system. Services provided for AVETCS as follows: “The Automatic Vehicle Entry Tax Collection System (AVETCS) of Commissioner of Transport constitutes electronic weigh bridges, CCTV system, computers, […]
Bajaj Herbals Private Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute that a fire has taken place in the factory of the appellant due to short circuit and the finished goods was destroyed along with other material like packing materials and consumables. It is observed that immediately when the fire took […]
Jay Gurudev Construction Co Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Issue involved is if the appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 15/2004- ST for the period 2005-06 and 2007-08. It is noticed that the benefit has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce any […]
Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Vs C.C. Jamnagar (Prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT observed that IBC proceedings are being initiated against many companies who are either appellant or respondent in the appeals pending before this tribunal. We observed that the revenue-department has no proper guideline as to what stand is to be taken in a case where […]
CESTAT find that cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service tax was paid by appellant as a recipient whereas, it was supposed to be paid by service provider
CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not attracted when there is no removal of capital assets/ power plant. Hence Cenvat Credit not leviable.
Devinder Singh Narang Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh) On behalf of Revenue it has been submitted that despite the extension of time granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Appellant failed to comply with the order of pre-deposit of Rs.50 lacs. We have seen the case records and find that time and again the […]
It is well settled law that the legislative intent, extending certain beneficial provision to the assessee, should not be made frivolous by interpreting the provision in a particular manner other than the one which reflects upon such intent.
Abaris Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the case on hand, from the material on records, we could see that apparently, there was an error, on the part of the CHA who inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 12/2012- Customs and accordingly discharged 5% customs duty., whereas, the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 was […]
Appellant have reversed or paid the amount in terms of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6, therefore, as per sub Rule (3D), it will amount to not taking of Cenvat credit
