Denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 and the department could not reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. Since the availability of credit had not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit could not be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services
CESTAT Delhi held that demand solely on the basis of the statement of the person who was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant is unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. are exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Notification No. 45/2010–ST dated 20.07.2010
CESTAT Kolkata held that as waste and scrap are not manufactured goods the legislature have consciously not made any provisions for reversal of any credit taken on duty paid inputs in case of clearance of waste and scrap
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Amar Cold Storage’s favor. DGFT clarification on DEPB entry Sr.No.2/66 prevails, reversing Customs Department.
Variety Lumbers Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The refund claim was admittedly not filed within the period of one year as prescribed in paragraph 2 of clause C of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 and the same stands filed within a period of one year from the date of order of Hon’ble […]
CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Chartered Accountant services for mere mention of Individual name after company name and Mere allegation in SCN cannot be a ground to deny Credit on bank charges
ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central GST (CESTAT Allahabad) The issue relates to inclusion of the amount collected by the appellant as Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS). Revenue’s contention is that the said collected amount would fall under the category of ‘Management Maintenance and Repair Services’ and would be liable to service tax separately. […]
Duty could not be demanded on the ground that there was absence of corroborative evidence on allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods as ,the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice, was merely on assumption and presumption, without sufficient material evidence corroborating the said allegations.
CESTAT Mumbai held that there are no allegations/ evidence that demonstrate that the customs broker didnt demonstrate speed and efficiency in respect of the impugned goods and hence there is no contravention of regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018
