Minvesta Infotech Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is argued by the learned consultant that prior to introduction of GST, appellant would have been able to take re credit of the said amount when refund claims are denied as time-barred. After the introduction of GST, the appellant is not able […]
Kohler India Corporation Private Limited vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The facts of the case, in brief, are that a team of Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of appellant and documents related to Cenvat Credit availed on services received from various service providers were called. Upon the examination of the appellant’s records/ […]
ITC Sonar (A Unit of ITC Limited) Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) The only issue to be decided in this Appeal is whether the 3rd Proviso of Rule 4(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014, has got retrospective effect. I find that the said proviso was introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2014 […]
Parts in issue herein have been used for smooth and efficient functioning of machinery which has been used for manufacturing Sugar and Molasses and therefore there is no reason not to allow Cenvat credit
CESTAT Delhi held that once the confiscation of seized currency is set aside, the appellant is entitled for refund of said seized currency along with interest. Department cannot deny payment of interest merely for the reason that there is no express statutory provision for the same
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules prescribes that if for ‘Any reason’ the use of the said credit is not possible, the manufacturer or provider of the output service shall be allowed refund of such amount. The sole reason for denying the refund claim is […]
CESTAT held that, the refund cannot be denied on the ground of double benefit to Appellant due to non-transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit. Further, interest was allowed under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 for delay of refund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as assessment of shipping bills has attained finality, classification of goods cannot be questioned subsequently by the Customs.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidence on record. Rejection of transaction value in absence of any evidence is untenable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as per the development agreement it is clear that activity of the appellant is of project developer and not as real estate agent and hence service tax not leviable.
