S. Vaidya and Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed three refund claims for refund of SAD amount of Rs.10,97,996/-. After scrutinizing the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that the sales invoices were not endorsed with the mandatory declaration that “no cenvat credit can be […]
Refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original notification no.102/2007-Customs. It was also held that period of limitation for first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification.
Whether appellants liable to pay service tax on consideration received for construction services which are composite in nature including both supply of materials and provision of services for the period prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT held that when Tribunal given a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to appellant, Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated demand after granting benefit.
CESTAT held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007
Integral Coach Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of railway coaches and are registered with the Central Excise Department. On specific intelligence that they were clearing railway coaches without payment of duty, the officers of the Preventive Unit […]
The issue is whether the respondent is eligible to avail credit on input services on freight charges and CHA services availed upto the port for export of goods.
CESTAT held that activity of treatment of effluent water is exempt from Service Tax under Notification No. 08/2017-S.T. dated 20.02.2017
Sunil Garg Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal is filed against penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the appellant as well as the third party. Therefore, these statements cannot […]
CESTAT held that respondent are entitle for the cenvat credit on the service of Repair & Maintenance during warranty period
