Procedural infirmities, for a shorter or longer time, does not in any way supplant service tax exemption accorded to impugned supply of services to units in SEZ
CESTAT held that ‘Explanation’ added to definition of ‘exempted service’ would widen the scope of the provision and will have prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively.
CESTAT Delhi held that tower/ tower material and pre-fabricated buildings/ shelters are covered within the definition of ‘capital goods’ and hence eligible for Cenvat Credit
In absence of any such specific allegation in show cause notice authority cannot mechanically impose penalty under Section 11AC of Excise Act
Krishna Construction Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad) In the instance case service tax was liable to be paid at the relevant time and it is only subsequently that by a retrospective amendment, exemption was granted with a specific condition that refund could be claimed by filing it within six […]
There was no levy of duty on compounded basis on Tin Packing machine and on pouches which had not been packed with the aid of packing machine, but were packed manually with the help of hand operated fillers or similar manually operated device and sealed with heat sealers/band sealers/candles/hot iron and the like.
Appellant not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules as he has not done nor has been concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, etc., of excisable goods.
Held that penalty u/s 112(a) imposed on customs broker is justified as importer of undeclared goods and undervalued goods is not traceable and the address as well as GST registration reflected in the documents are found to be fake.
1981 Circular of the Board clarifies that losses of up to 1% can be allowed without detailed scrutiny and loss above 1% can be condoned after scrutiny, we find no reason to not condone losses in these cases as claimed.
There is no dispute that the MS items were used for fabricating and installing paint plant within the premises of the appellant. The said paint plant is also integral to the manufacturing activity. After appreciating the facts and applying the decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. (supra), CESTAT hold that the credit availed on MS items has to be allowed to the appellant.
