CESTAT Ahmedabad held that difference is value declared on import of non-calcined petroleum coke by the appellant i.e. Rs. 2871.15 as against the comparable imports price i.e. Rs. 3701.20 justified based on the nature of supplies and long-term contract of appellant with supplier.
Sos Finance Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard, the imposition of penalty under Section 76 in the present case, I find the issue is settled […]
Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service being classifiable under Sponsorship Service, the appellant was supposed to discharge the service tax under GR-7 Challan. We find that the service provider M/s. K.P.H. Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. has […]
Parthiv V Dave Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the exporter has made a serious offence by mis-declaring the quantity i.e. against 30,000 pairs declared in the export document only physical quantity found 405 pairs. Moreover, the value was also shown exorbitantly high. I find that though the appellant has acted as CHA and […]
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of CBEC Circular F. No. 137/167/2006-CX dated 3.10.2007 vis-à-vis provisions of section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, relating to conclusion of entire proceedings on payment of service tax along with interest not available, as assessee failed to pay reduced penalty as required.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deposit in PLA is not a payment of duty. Accordingly, refund claim for unutilized balance in PLA is not hit by limitation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 not imposable in absence of deliberate intention to evade the payment of service tax.
When the drill ship was located in an area which was outside the territorial purview of the Finance Act, of 1994, service tax could not be demanded on repair and maintenance work carried out in non-designated areas.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided to the State of Jammu & Kashmir are not liable to service tax, as Section 64 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 excludes the applicability of service tax to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence these services are neither taxable nor exempted.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim of service tax paid on input services which are wholly consumed within SEZ cannot be denied.
