CESTAT held that, once assessee had reversed proportionate credit attributed to exempted goods, no demand of 10% of value of goods can be raised by Revenue Department.
When the test reports were available on record, there was no need to go to the website and Wikipedia for the meaning of the product.
Rule 11(3) Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 Bar of credit lapsing applicable only when assessee availed absolute exemption & not on conditional one
There is no error in the finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard, as indeed the appellant did try to evade payment of service tax by treating the amount as a security deposit when in fact it was clearly an advance, which fact was very specifically mentioned in the Agreement. The intention to evade payment of service tax by suppression of material facts is writ large.
Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 ibid deals with imposition of mandatory penalty in certain cases. As per the Customs Act it is the importer who is to file the bill of entry to the proper officer u/s. 46 ibid while importing the goods and the assessment has to be made on that bill of entry and on such assessment, the duty is levied
Without any single evidence of taking credit in SCN, the SCN is bald & proceedings flowing from said SCN liable to be quashed on this threshold point itself.
There is no restriction in CENVAT Credit Rules that Appellants should not use the prime quality materials for the manufacture of final products, CENVAT credit cannot be denied
When the question is considered in the larger perspective, it is clear that there is no violation as alleged, more so because the PSI certificate issued by the Branch was subsequently ratified by the DGFT (as reflected in paragraph 25 of the Order-in-Original), which serves the purpose.
Verizon India Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The case of Revenue is that the location of service provider/appellant is in India and further in terms of Rule 9 of POPS, the service provided, being intermediary services, the location of the service provider under Rule 9 of POPS, shall be the place […]
The issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the services obtained by the appellant for removal of coal fly ash from the captive power plant which is used for generation of power, which in turn, is captively consumed for manufacture of excisable goods, can be held to be an eligible cenvatable input service.
