Rajesh Kumar Narula Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the fact that the period involved in the present case is 2004-05. The offence of issuing bogus LR can at the most fall under the provision of Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the said provision […]
If appellant have not availed Cenvat credit in respect of input service used in exempted goods and if at all the same is availed and subsequently reversed proportionate credit, the assessee is not required to pay 5%/ 10%.
Cenvat credit eligible in respect of Cement, TMT bars, MS angles, channels, beams, racks, plates, etc. used for making foundation of machineries installed in the factory premises and also for making structures for support of the plant.
CESTAT held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on Accordingly refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty of only 25% and not 100% leviable as duty along with interest and 25% penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of Order-in-Original.
J M Huber India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Commission Agent Service provided to foreign based entity for promoting/marketing their goods in India on consideration the activity of the Indian agent providing promotion/marketing, technical support, installation, commission, etc. for sale of goods of foreign based entities in India on commission basis amounts […]
Trenching pipeline installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in operation of the SEZ is admissible and the refund of the same is clearly admissible.
B M Autolink Vs C.C.E.-Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the fact is not under dispute that the appellant being a dealer purchase the vehicles from M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and subsequently sell the same to various customers. The transaction between M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the dealer and subsequently sale transaction […]
Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Vs Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that admittedly, Save and Except taking forward of the credit balance as on 30.06.2017, the appellant have not commenced production or manufacturing activities nor cleared any taxable goods on or after 1.7.2017. Further, debit by the appellant in the electronic […]
