Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) With regard to cenvat credit of input service availed for manufacture of exempted goods, namely, Ethyl Alcohol, the only argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that they had availed credit by inadvertent mistake. The said mistake would not have […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs Pidilite Industries Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) It is seen that the first appellate authority has interpreted the time limit in section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 according to the letter of the law which mandates liability of interest for any delay in sanction of refund beyond three months from date of claim. […]
Prasad Explosive & Chemicals Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.43/RAN/2018 dated 01.02.2018 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi. 2.1 The facts in brief are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of “Emulsion […]
Universal Industries Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant, inter alia urges that appellant have paid custom duty on CIF value which includes ocean freight element. Thus, there can be no demand of service tax on the purchase price of goods, even under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. […]
Alkem Laboratories Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Whether the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs and packing materials used in the manufacture of medicament (exhibit batches) and the same is tested for trial and quality purpose and were destroyed / disposed off within the factory thereafter? CESTAT find that there is […]
V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that requires to be analysed in these present appeals is whether the date of one year has to be computed from the date of resubmission of the refund claim or the date of original submission of the claim. Needless to say that […]
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Multi System Operator (MSO) is liable to pay service tax only on the gross amount received by them from Local Cable Operators (LCOs)
Shubhlakshmi Polysters Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the adjudication authority in respect of disputed input services denied the credit without discussing the nature and use of the services in the Appellant’s factory. In order to find out the eligibility of a particular service as ‘input service’ under such definition, the nature and […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that where during the provision of Authorized Service Station Services, the spare parts and lubricants sold and VAT thereupon was paid the value of such spare parts and lubricants would not attract Service Tax.
It is settled position of law that the time limit applicable for demand of customs duty under section 28 ibid is also applicable to recovery of amount under section 28B.
