Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that if the sale of goods is on FOR, freight is included in assessable value on which excise duty was paid and the freight was not separately charged to the customer of the goods, the assessee is entitled for the Cenvat Credit. […]
CESTAT Delhi held that sprinklers are not included in the description of goods contained at Serial No. 325 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 chargeable to 18%, whereas, serial No. 195B of the notification does not restrict the sprinklers to any category and hence benefit of lower IGST rate of 12% available to fire sprinklers.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the activities of renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods cannot be classified under infrastructural support service and since the said services were taxable after the relevant period. Demand of service tax not sustainable for earlier period.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ordered provisional release of perishable goods i.e. dry dates holding that in case of perishable goods provisional release of the goods should be allowed expeditiously.
CESTAT Mumbai held that settled classification may be unsettled only by the argument of inapplicability owing to the distinguishable nature of the product. Accordingly, benefit of exemption from additional duties of customs allowed to hard disk drives.
Manikgarh Cement Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The question that arises is whether ‘welding electrodes’ are ‘consumables’ as held by the original authority or are used in the manufacture of excisable goods and, therefore, eligible for MODVAT credit as claimed by the assessee. It is the claim of the appellant that within ‘capital […]
It is not in dispute that the said electricity is supplied to the factory of the respondent and the same is used for manufacturing activity. Merely because the wind generation plant is situated far away from the manufacturing activity, credit cannot be denied.
Principle of ‘user test’ also need to be considered while deciding the entitlement of assessee to avail CENVAT Credit as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC).
It is a settled legal position that when the assessee was not put to notice with regard to the reasons basis which the demand is being sought to be made, the proceedings cannot be legally sustained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that arrangement of the appellant with it is associate companies is in the nature of cost sharing and it would not be correct to say that the appellants are providing any services to their associate companies and hence demand of service tax unsustainable.
