Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) During the adjudication proceedings appellants have contended that the said activities were undertaken before sale of land took place, hence the service was a self-service and there is no service provider and service recipient relationship and therefore they are not liable for […]
CESTAT held that service rendered by ‘lead generator’ is not that of an ‘insurance agent’ and, consequently, the commission paid by respondent to such entities are not liable to be included in the assessable value of the respondent for discharge of tax liability under Finance Act, 1994.
The assessee should have been put to Notice and a reasonable opportunity should have been given for representing their case. While the same was not done, jumping straight way to coercive measures was certainly uncalled for. Therefore, Interest collected being without authority of Law needs to be refunded along with applicable interest.
Ms Great India Steel Fabricatros Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) Considering the fact that on introduction of Central GST Act, 2017, Section 142 deals the situation which directs the authorities to sanction all the refund claims in cash, therefore, no authority can sanction refund claim to be credited in Cenvat credit account. In […]
M/s. Kandla Port Trust Vs CCE&ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Letting Out of Port Premises Cannot Be Classified As ‘Port Service’ and Cenvat Credit on Telephone At Residential Premises Of Officers Allowed Since Port Operates 24*7. SERVICE TAX ON TOLL COLLECTION AND ENTRY FEE – Assessee relied on Circular no. 354/27/2012-TRU dated 22.02.2012 wherein it was clarified […]
Kent Chemicals Private Ltd Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) The proven discharge of liability by the service provider, the same is opined to be a sufficient cause for the appellant to have a bonafide impression of him to no more be liable to pay the service tax even under reverse charge mechanism. The allegation as that […]
M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs C.C.E. Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the Chartered/ Cost Accountant has certified that the goods were sold on FOR basis by the Appellant and the freight/ damages in transit was responsibility of Appellant till the goods reaches the doorstep of the Customers. Also we find that the consignment […]
The adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant’s claim of it having made the refund claim on 27.06.2017. The first appellate authority has also concluded the date of filing of the refund claim was 12.07.2017 only as against which the appellant contends that there was an attempt to file the refund claim on 27.06.2017
CESTAT Ahmedabad allows CENVAT credit on GTA services for doorstep delivery, distinguishing from Ultratech judgment. Relying on Circulars, benefit extended during the relevant period.
CESTAT Chennai has held that import of second hand machinery cannot be subjected to imposition of anti- dumping duty (ADD) meant for new machinery. It observed that purpose of anti-dumping is served, in case of second-hand machinery, by way of re-appraisement of declared value, and imposition of ADD would be nothing but double jeopardy.
