Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Vs C.C. Jamnagar (Prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT observed that IBC proceedings are being initiated against many companies who are either appellant or respondent in the appeals pending before this tribunal. We observed that the revenue-department has no proper guideline as to what stand is to be taken in a case where […]
CESTAT find that cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service tax was paid by appellant as a recipient whereas, it was supposed to be paid by service provider
CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not attracted when there is no removal of capital assets/ power plant. Hence Cenvat Credit not leviable.
Devinder Singh Narang Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh) On behalf of Revenue it has been submitted that despite the extension of time granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Appellant failed to comply with the order of pre-deposit of Rs.50 lacs. We have seen the case records and find that time and again the […]
It is well settled law that the legislative intent, extending certain beneficial provision to the assessee, should not be made frivolous by interpreting the provision in a particular manner other than the one which reflects upon such intent.
Abaris Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the case on hand, from the material on records, we could see that apparently, there was an error, on the part of the CHA who inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 12/2012- Customs and accordingly discharged 5% customs duty., whereas, the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 was […]
Appellant have reversed or paid the amount in terms of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6, therefore, as per sub Rule (3D), it will amount to not taking of Cenvat credit
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Thermax Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai) On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent had procured duty paid inputs on which CENVAT credit was availed but cleared the goods, as such, on a sale value which was higher than the purchase CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provide for clearance of […]
Appellant has deliberately and intentionally has not provided any such information which was false or incorrect. As such, in my opinion that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 has wrongly been imposed upon him.
CESTAT held that exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE is available to sub-contractor who supplied the goods to the main contractor who has been awarded contract/ work order under ICB.
