Savita Oil Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The issue revolves around the alleged non-receipt of ‘inputs’ in excess of the tolerance margin of 0.4% at the facility of the appellant as evidenced by their own ‘goods receipt note (GRN)’ for the disputed period and the impugned order held that ‘8. The […]
Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant then sought for refund of the service tax paid by them to the tune of Rs.11,60,968/- on the ground that no services were provided by the German company to them and that the amount having been refunded to them, they […]
Suzuki Morots Gujarat Private Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the classification of the disputed goods, in question, under heading 8708, has not given any finding as to whether all the above conditions which are very important for deciding the classification of goods, satisfy / comply in respect of the disputed […]
Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Anil Dudalal Kaneria vs C.C.E. Understand the penalty reduction from INR 5 Lacs to INR 1 Lac for failure in goods accounting. Details and implications.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore order on Manav Marketing Pvt. Ltd. service tax issue. Analysis of machine commissioning charges, office expenses, and commission. Full text included.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd. service tax dispute. Analysis of sports facility services, commercial construction, and implications. Full text included.
Vandana Global Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Whether for the electricity generated by the appellants for captive consumption, some part whereof has been sold to state electricity body, the appellants are not liable to take the credit on such amount of electricity as has been sold out. It is […]
Rejection of refund claim against pre-deposit, in compliance to Section 35F (Pre 2014 amendment)- Payment made towards discharge of duty confirmed alongwith interest and penalty was in the form of pre-deposit so as to acquire right of appeal and doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in respect of such deposit,
CESTAT set aside the impugned order pertaining to the rejection of refund of unutilized cenvat credit of Education Cess, SHEC and KKC
we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
