CESTAT Ahmedabad held that absolutely no indication as to how the amount received by the appellant from PGVCL would qualify as Business Auxiliary Service. Only bland allegation without any substantiation cannot be upheld.
Indian Additives Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The definition of “capital goods” after 01.04.2016 does not exclude ‘any equipment or appliance used in an office’. For this reason, I hold that the credit availed by the appellant on the said computer server after 01.04.2016 would be eligible. It has also […]
IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the dispute relates to demand of duty on the semi-finished goods/ work in process goods during the debonding of EOU. We find that as per the details submitted by the appellant which is not in dispute, the semi-finished goods/ work in process was […]
Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs Commissioner Of CGST & CE (CESTAT Mumbai) The only objection which has been raised is to the word ‘building’ used in the Notification No 25/2012-ST whereas appellant are claiming exemption in respect of shop and flats purchased by them from the M/s Yog Reality. In the impugned order […]
M R Patel & Sons Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the present case involved mix question of law and facts. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter relying on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Coal Handlers (supra) wherein it was held that the identical services are classifiable under clearing […]
Maheshwari Texturisers Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the issue involved is of levy of NCCD in respect of Partially Oriented Yarn falling under Chapter 5402 consumed actively for the manufacture of Polyester Texturized Yarn. On the said issue, there are number of judgments as cited by the […]
Emami Paper Mills Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT held that mere statement in the Order-In-Original dated 08.06.2016 that the appellant had suppressed material facts from the Department and that the purported contravention had been detected only during audit was insufficient justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. the evidences […]
RPP Infra Projects Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT held that department has to refrain from issuing Show Cause Notice if the appellant pays up the service tax along with interest as ascertained by himself or by the officers. In the present case, the appellant has paid up the service tax […]
Circular No. 11/2016-Cus. dated 15.03.2016 has not personified any violator individually since it had categorically stated that cases involving seizer and confiscation would be out of the purview of the Circular and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner in allowing the benefit contained in Section 28(6)(i) to the importer company and its Managing Director and denying the same to the Appellant CHA who is charged under same penal provisions under Section 112, 114(A), 114(A)(A) in the same case is unsustainable in law and equity.
M J Gold Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the Customs Authority while verifying the origin of goods had issued a questionnaire and denied the benefit on the ground that the complete questionnaire was not answered by the appellant creating a doubt about the Country of origin Certificate. The perusal […]
