CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deposit in PLA is not a payment of duty. Accordingly, refund claim for unutilized balance in PLA is not hit by limitation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 not imposable in absence of deliberate intention to evade the payment of service tax.
When the drill ship was located in an area which was outside the territorial purview of the Finance Act, of 1994, service tax could not be demanded on repair and maintenance work carried out in non-designated areas.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided to the State of Jammu & Kashmir are not liable to service tax, as Section 64 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 excludes the applicability of service tax to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence these services are neither taxable nor exempted.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim of service tax paid on input services which are wholly consumed within SEZ cannot be denied.
Rudraksh Detergent And Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E.-Kutch (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the re-credit claimed by the appellant is correct or not in terms of para 2C of area based exemption Notification No. 39/2001- CE dated 31.07.2001. This appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order whereby […]
Ratnawat Infra Construction Company LLP Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Situation which arises in this particular type of business of developing real estate, the CBIC have considered and have clarified that the developer/builder is entitled to service tax credit on cancellation of bookings, wherein the builder have refunded the amount of booking […]
Apollo Construction Projects’ service tax dispute with ONGC, GWSSB, and AUDA. CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside tax demand on road construction services provided to GWSSB and AUDA.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere manual segregation of plastic scrap from the rest of the scrap is neither manufacturing nor producing the plastic scrap and hence no central excise duty is chargeable on removal of the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that to maintain judicial discipline, the Assistant Commissioner had necessarily to implement the decision of the Tribunal. Denial of refund pursuant thereto is unjustifiable.
