Gujarat Insecticides Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that activity of the appellant is indeed manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of CEA, 1944. As per the definition of business auxiliary service manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clearly […]
Chiron Behring Veccines Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the appellant have made a submission about limitation and sought benefit of section 73 (3) and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard the limitation we find that the issue about taxability on reverse charge basis in respect of […]
CESTAT held that even though setting up of a new factory, construction of building of service provider is not excluded from the definition of Input service. In this case the construction of Jetty is clearly in the nature of expansion of existing Jetty therefore, credit is clearly admissible.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that extended period of limitation not invocable as non-payment of tax was on account of bona fide belief and not on account of any fraud, mis-statement etc.
CESTAT Chennai held that M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not commercial organization and only organizing game of cricket. Therefore, any service rendered to BCCI-IPL by M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is not in the nature of support of business of BCCI. Accordingly, service tax demand not sustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that CCR, or the Central Excise Rules or the Act places an obligation on the buyer of the goods to investigate that whether the process undertaken by the supplier amounts to manufacture or not and determine the duty thereon.
CESTAT Chennai held that tax liability was fastened upon the appellant without the principles of audi alteram partem (i.e. without referring to the documents furnished by the appellant) is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that an assessee cannot avail of the options under Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 simultaneously. Once the option is availed, other option cannot be chosen simultaneously.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of interest under section 61(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable as SCN is time barred.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that duty demand in a case of clandestine clearance cannot be sustained if there is no conclusive evidence of physical movement or diversion. The demand based on assumptions and presumptions is unsustainable.
