CESTAT held that the agriculture/cultivation includes irrigation or watering of the plants, as due to lack of irrigation, it is very difficult to have any agriculture produce. Accordingly, it was held that the activities carried out by the appellant is covered in the Negative List, which are exempt from Service tax.
TIDC India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) To claim Cenvat Credit primarily the service should be first covered under the definition of ‘input service’ and once the service is not covered due to exclusion clause irrespective of the fact whether the cost of service has been taken as expenditure in […]
D.J. Import (Prop-Harpreet Singh) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) So far as penalty under Section 117 is concerned, CESTAT find that the conduct of the Appellant is also dubious, and not clean. In spite of having knowledge that the goods dispatched by the Shipper vide aforementioned Bill of Lading, being not as per order […]
Dow International Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The Appellant is in Appeal against impugned Order-in-Appeal whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the Appeal on the ground of limitation. It has been observed in the impugned order that although the Appellant had filed an application of condonation of delay but have not given […]
Indo Tooling Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT finds that payment of service tax including the cess relating to the period prior to 30.06.2017, paid in the year 2018 during the GST regime, amounts to payment in accordance with law as the same has been paid on the insistence […]
Pawan Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalties have been imposed under section 112 (a) and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 for alleged preparation of fake TR-6 challans showing payment of customs duty which actually was not paid by the appellant. Ld. […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) First and foremost point to be considered is that whether Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 prohibits issue of two registration certificates for one and the same premises that formed the basis of the adjudication order? On a bare reading of Rule […]
Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (I) (CESTAT Mumbai) It is settled principle of the commercial transactions that the prices of the transacted goods can be determined only on the date of transaction and not on any other date whether previous or subsequent. The prices may fluctuate on account of the vagaries of […]
Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appeal is filed against denial of cenvat credit of service tax taken by the appellant on maintenance and repair work of their residential colony on the ground that the said service has no nexus with the manufacture of final product. Rule 2(l) of Cenvat […]
Falcon India (Customs Broker) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Regulation 10 (n) of CBLR 2018 (read with erstwhile Regulation 11(n) of CBLR, 2013) requires the Customs Broker to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN),identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared […]
