CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as there is no suppression of facts with the intend to evade payment of tax. Accordingly, order dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The issue to be decided is whether the rejection of the request to transfer the cenvat credit balance to the lessee unit is legal and proper.
Core Minerals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 only requires the production of documents and it is not in dispute that the appellant had indeed produced the documents (though a few photocopy of some invoices). Thus, we are of the clear view that the appellant has complied with the […]
Residential complex Construction service to Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited for police staff is not liable to service tax
It is seen that the Certificate from the Chartered Accountant is mandated under Para 3(i) of the Notification if the refund claim amount is more than 0.5% of the FOB value of the goods exported. Since legislative intention is not to export the taxes, I feel that an opportunity can be given to the Appellant to file the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate in terms of Para 3(i) of Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29/06/2012.
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
