Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that general principles of interpretation of the exemption notification that it has to be construed strictly shall not really apply to the SEZ units which are otherwise exempted from the liability of the various duties under the […]
Commissioner of CGST & Excise Vs Broad Son Commodities Private Limited (CESTAT Kolkata) The facts of the case are that the Government of Bihar awarded to the respondent the right to use mining of minerals, oil or gas in respect of sand ghats of Patna, Bhojpur and Saran of the State of Bihar. The right […]
Ramaben Parmar Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the service tax on the job work carried out by the appellant, we find that the appellant have converted the casting by process of machining into a parts which is used by the principal manufacturer in the manufacture of their product. The conversion from rough casting […]
ITC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Whether the IDSC/ICNC debit note raised by Bhadrachalam Unit have to be considered as a component of cost of raw materials of the appellant and Whether the unabsorbed overheads due to idle capacity have to be included in the cost of production? n the case of […]
CESTAT Chennai held that no documents are placed on record establishing that services are rendered in India, accordingly, service tax liability under management, maintenance or repair service unsustainable.
Once the show cause notice proposes a particular classification it is not open to Adjudicating authority to classify the goods under a different If the revenue wishes to change the classification a separate show cause notice is required to be issued within permissible time.
CESTAT Chennai held that appeal by department dismissed as time-barred as review order as required u/s 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 assumed to have been passed beyond 3 months as no evidence produced proving delay in receiving review order.
Issue is as to whether service tax can be demanded on reimbursable expenses. CESTAT held that demand cannot sustain & requires to be set aside
CESTAT Delhi held that jewellery is not liable to confiscation in the absence of any evidence that it is smuggled or it has been made by converting smuggled gold.
CESTAT Chennai held that as department failed to provide any evidence to establish the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the reviewing cell. Hence delay in filing of appeal by department dismissed as time-barred.
