Read the analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad order regarding the absence of evidence of excise duty inclusion in the price charged from buyers. Learn how the CESTAT granted the benefit of cum-duty price and remanded the case for re-quantification of duty demand and penalties.
A detailed look at the case of IGP Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, where CESTAT ruled that duty exemption could not be denied due to an initial mismatch.
An exploration of the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs Galaxy Diesel, focusing on the demand for exempted service despite Cenvat Credit repayment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as appellant is not a service recipient, service tax cannot be demanded from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) in case of bank charges paid by Indian Bank to Foreign Bank and reimbursed from the appellant.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Granite Slabs is correctly classified under 21561200 and not under 68022390. Accordingly, the demand on this count is not sustainable hence, the same is set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that as all the details are furnished based on which permission for DTA clearance was granted. Accordingly, allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. Hence demand set aside as time barred.
CESTAT Bangalore held that allegation of the department that the quantity of goods as shown in the purchase invoices were brought into the factory, processed, converted into finished goods and removed clandestinely without payment of duty are not supported with sufficient evidence are liable to be set aside.
The CESTAT Kolkata has ruled in favor of Haldia Petrochemicals Limited in Excise Appeal No. 762/2010. The appeal challenged the duty demand of Rs. 10,67,40,103/- under the proviso to Section 11A, along with interest and penalty.
CESTAT Kolkata has quashed the service tax demand imposed on Walchandnagar Industries Limited (WIL) in a case involving a composite contract for setting up a cement manufacturing unit. The tribunal determined that the contract primarily involved the supply of goods, and the value assigned to the bought-out items sold by WIL cannot be considered as a consulting engineer service.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the shortage ascertained during the course of stock-taking are on the basis of assumption and presumption. Accordingly, duty demand on account of shortage of finished goods unsustainable.
