CESTAT Ahmedabad held that where during the provision of Authorized Service Station Services, the spare parts and lubricants sold and VAT thereupon was paid the value of such spare parts and lubricants would not attract Service Tax.
It is settled position of law that the time limit applicable for demand of customs duty under section 28 ibid is also applicable to recovery of amount under section 28B.
Siba International Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant-Exporter Siba International was engaged in export of processed buffalo meat after procuring the same from M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods, Moradabad (UP) an approved processing plant for export of boneless buffalo meat as a prescribed condition under Chapter […]
Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of breakfast cereals and avails the CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services used in relation to the manufacture of their final products. From the perusal […]
Advance Computer Education Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The appellant also raised a point that they are eligible for exemption on the vocational training service. In this regard we find that Computer Education service has been excluded from the Vocational Training service by Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005. In this case […]
Desai and Diwanji Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) It was held in that decision that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting system, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitled the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid […]
IND Synergy Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad) This appeal has been filed by M/s IND Synergy Ltd., (Raipur) assailing the order-in-original dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam, the operative part of which is as follows: (a) “I deny the benefit of Notification No. 097/2004-Customs dated 17.09.2004 to the capital […]
CESTAT Allahabad held that clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires to be substantiated by evidence. Here, as department has not adduced any additional evidence to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal not sustained.
CESTAT held that Hotel accommodation service received by appellant is an eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Hyderabad held that classifying micronutrients manufactured by the appellant, as plant growth regulators, under Chapter heading 38089304 instead of Chapter heading 3105 is unsustainable
