CESTAT Mumbai held that as per rule 7B(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the claimant is required to submit a revised return. Accordingly, as the claimant failed to furnish the same refund is not admissible.
CESTAT Chennai held that minor deficiency in the processing may not ipso facto make the leather as not fully finished. Accordingly, satisfying the conditions contained in Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009, the same is freely exportable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim was rejected on sole ground of non-production of original documents. However, as original documents are misplaced, as per provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, attested copies of invoices should be considered as proof of production of document.
C.C. Kandla Vs Reliance Industries Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that in the present case, the revenue has not challenged the merit of the case however their appeal is only on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Revenue contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed the order of Mundra Custom however he has not […]
Once there is no averment either in SCN or impugned orders regarding availment of benefits by suppression of fact or fraud, invoking extended period of limitation is not proper
Apex Court held that unjust enrichment not attracted where amount is deposited during investigation and pendency of appeal, as such deposits are under protest or in the nature of pre-deposit.
Concerned authorities have justified issuance of Show Cause Notice by invoking extended period of limitation, but for a mere allegation that there was suppression. It is very much settled position of law that allegations, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case, it is an undisputed facts that the automotive dealers had paid service tax on the nature of services described in the invoices issued to the appellant; that payment of service tax by such dealers have been accepted […]
Since, the show cause notice was issued by Revenue, burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that the hiring of halls and hotel rooms had no nexus with the output services. Whereas the finding as recorded by both the original and appellate authorities did not indicate that the burden of proof is discharged by Revenue.
For assessment of Bulk liquid Cargo duty is payable on quantity received in shore tank & not on quantity mentioned in Bill of Leading/invoice
