Bata India Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the Adjudicating Authority has mis-directed in denying the CENVAT Credit and that the Commissioner has not appreciated the facts of the case properly nor has she examined the facts of the case from the perspective […]
Confiscation of eleven gold bars-MMTC marking/brand was upheld and penalty under section 112(b) was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000 as the reliability of statement of Mr. Bajpai recorded during investigation was doubtful, as he had alleged coercion and duress.
Adithya Builders and Developers Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) In a major relief to the Adithya Builders and Developers, the Banglore Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that Service Tax Levy depends on services rendered, not on basis of agreements where no payment received by service provider. The […]
Dolphin Metals I Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The brief facts of the case are that based on the intelligence, an investigation was undertaken against M/s Nisha Industries which revealed that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on invoices without actual receipt of inputs; that the finished goods were found at both the manufacturing […]
Adroit Pharmachem Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Revenue submits that after 01.04.2011, construction service was excluded from the definition of ‘Input Service’ therefore, the appellant is not entitled for Cenvat credit. Appellant has already existing factory and in the said factory, Effluent Treatment Plant was installed for which they […]
We find going by the principle of dominant use as enunciated in the judgments cited above, as we find that the tyres are basically suitable for off-road use that is in difficult terrain and rocky/muddy areas etc.
CESTAT held that, right to claim Service Tax refund cannot be denied merely on account of procedural lapse of filing TRAN-1 before December 27, 2017.
Jayesh C Patel Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute in the fact that the appellants have entered into the contract for undertaking the manufacturing of Plastic Jars and containers in the factory of the Service recipient. The charges for the job is on per container basis, the appellants are not collecting […]
Arihant Tradelinks India Private Limited Vs C.C.E., Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that limitation period could not be invoked as the issue involved is purely of interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, levy of CVD in terms of Customs Tariff Act, therefore malafide intention cannot be […]
It can be seen that the electricity charges which is reimbursed on actual basis in terms of the contract is not includible in the gross value of service provided by the appellant to Gujarat Gas Company Limited.
