NPT Papers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) It is well settled law that even if the foreign suppliers are related to indian importers the transaction value cannot be rejected on the grounds that a transaction is between the related person when identical or similar goods were sold at the same price to unrelated […]
Riba Textiles Limited Vs CCE & ST, Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) Provisions of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 clearly show that every claim of refund, every proceeding of appeal, review or reference filed/initiated whether on or before the appointed day i. e. 1.7.2017 under the existing law which means the jurisdiction for the purpose of […]
DI Gold Designer Jewellery Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, when apparently, the show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods seized under Section 110 of Customs Act was issued after one year from the date of seizure. The show cause notice itself gets hit by limitation as the show cause notice […]
Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) We find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the shortages and excesses if any found are theoretical due to huge quantity of inputs handling. It is not a case of the Department that the appellant have ever removed any Cenvat inputs […]
Power Weave Software Services P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been demanded from the appellant for import of the goods being 100% EOU, who obtained permission from Software Technology Parks of India (STPI in short) and goods were also liable […]
Circor Flow Technologies India Private Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, (CESTAT Chennai) Section 142 (3) of GST Act provides how to deal with claims of refund of service tax of tax and duty / credit under the erstwhile It is stated that therein that such claims have to be disposed in […]
Commissioner of CGST & Excise Vs Asian Hotel (East) Limited (CESTAT Kolkata) In this case, I find that the contention of the appellant that he bona fidely believed that he is not liable to pay service tax but during the audit, the audit party informed him that he is liable to pay service tax, then […]
In present facts of the case, while dismissing appeal of the Revenue, the Hon’ble CESTAT observed that substantial benefit provided by Notifications can’t be denied on procedural lapse.
What had been manufactured and supplied by assessee was ‘concrete mix’, which was not dutiable. Revenue had not brought any facts on record in support of its allegation of manufacture of RMC by assessee. Therefore, ‘concrete mix’ manufactured by assessee was not dutiable under Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi grants refund to Amzole India Pvt. Ltd. on service tax. Advocate Anand Bhattacharya highlights key ruling. Legal insights on service tax dispute.
