Without any single evidence of taking credit in SCN, the SCN is bald & proceedings flowing from said SCN liable to be quashed on this threshold point itself.
There is no restriction in CENVAT Credit Rules that Appellants should not use the prime quality materials for the manufacture of final products, CENVAT credit cannot be denied
When the question is considered in the larger perspective, it is clear that there is no violation as alleged, more so because the PSI certificate issued by the Branch was subsequently ratified by the DGFT (as reflected in paragraph 25 of the Order-in-Original), which serves the purpose.
Verizon India Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The case of Revenue is that the location of service provider/appellant is in India and further in terms of Rule 9 of POPS, the service provided, being intermediary services, the location of the service provider under Rule 9 of POPS, shall be the place […]
The issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the services obtained by the appellant for removal of coal fly ash from the captive power plant which is used for generation of power, which in turn, is captively consumed for manufacture of excisable goods, can be held to be an eligible cenvatable input service.
CESTAT held that buying and selling of SIM cards and recharge coupons does not amount to providing business auxiliary service (BAS)
Suo motu credit of Cenvat reversed earlier involved only an account entry reversal and in the process, no outflow of funds from the assesse and accordingly, filing of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not required.
Service tax demand against famous cricketers and brothers, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan was not justified as they were not providing any service as an independent individual worker therefore, they were not liable to service tax under the Business Support Service for brand endorsement during IPL.
Chimes Aviation Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Confiscation and customs duty recovery order against Chimes Aviation Private Limited for use of aircrafts for purposes other than training was quashed as the customs authorities should have proceeded to recover the duty on the basis of the undertaking only when the competent authority […]
The department had challenged the order passed by Tribunal, Mumbai wherein, the tribunal, inter alia, held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and the same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of the Central Excise Tariff.
