CESTAT Kolkata held that the activity of loading and unloading of goods was instantly for transportation and therefore said services were classified as Goods Transport Agency and not Cargo Handling Services accordingly exempted under notification no. 17/2009.
CESTAT Mumbai held that CENVAT Credit is duly available against debit notes that contains substantially the same information as prescribed in rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellant has duly reversed the CENVAT Credit on inputs used in respect of finished goods contained in the broken bottles of beverages, the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the same.
CESTAT Kolkata held that refund of tax paid under mistake is not barred by period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Refund granted to the appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai held that clear intention of export under ‘advance authorization scheme’ is evident and hence mere title of the shipping bills is to be alter. Application for alteration of the same cannot be rejected.
ITAT Hyderabad held that Cenvat credit of inputs used in manufacture of goods exported under bond from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit is available as refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that extended period of limitation can be invoked only when there is willful suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of service tax.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the goods are to be assessed in the form they are produced for assessment. Accordingly, goods cleared as fruit pulp cannot be assessed and duty cannot be demanded on the basis of sale price of fruit juice.
CESTAT Delhi held that proviso to Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules specifically debars the payment of Clean Energy Cess by use of cenvat credit taken under Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, intent of legislation is very clear not to allow the cenvat credit of Clean Energy Cess.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that direct participation and knowledge on the part of the person has to be established. In absence of sufficient evidence, penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be levied.
