Heavy Vehicles Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) provisions of Rule 4 are very clear as regards the time limit for availment of Cenvat credit. We find that the provisions of Rules cannot be read in isolation. The entire set of Rules covering availment/utilization of credit i.e., CCR, 2004, has to be […]
Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Principal Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of […]
Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) In valuation, rejection of the declared amount is a pre-requisite because the relevant Rules afford consequential alternatives but rejection of declared classification at the outset carries the burden of saddling the exercise with re-classification that may not meet the test of General Rules for […]
CENVAT credit cannot be denied due to the reason that the invoices were issued in the name of head offices with centralised registration. The purpose of taking centralized registration is to help the manufacturer for availment of credit as well as distribution of credit.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs CCE, Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) In this case Department seeks to deny the Credit Credit on the two grounds, namely :- (a) at the time of receipt of capital goods in the refinery where the same had been installed for setting up Nephtha Cracker Plant, the appellant were not owner of […]
Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Appellant submitted that the Show Cause Notice having been issued by DRI, the order passed cannot sustain in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2021 (376) ELT 3 (SC). […]
Insistence on the part of appellant to deliberately classify their services under a different head shows their intention of escaping their liability for the previous period which amount to noncompliance with statutory obligations.
Royal Shelter Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The department was of the view that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the taxable services of construction of residential complex rendered by them. Show Cause Notice demanding service tax for the period January 2009 to January 2010 was issued to […]
Held that, service tax will not be levied on the donations received by a trust from its members and on freight charges paid towards the activity of advancement of yoga. Further held that, activities can’t be covered under Goods and Transport Agency Service where consignment notes have not been issued.
CESTAT find that service tax was not leviable on the services provided by the appellants, which was paid by mistake by the appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund. Limitation u/s 11B will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit.
