CESTAT Held that, no service tax is payable on notice pay in lieu of sudden termination, as it does not give rise to the rendition of service either by the employer or the employee, and compensation for failure under a contract cannot be consideration for service. Further held that such contract cannot be termed as declared service.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST(CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved is whether the appellant-manufacturer of Lead and Zinc Concentrates which are dutiable whether they are entitled to refund of unutilized Cenvat credit of i) education cess ii) Secondary and Higher Education Cess, lying unutilized (credit balance) as on 30th June 2017. I […]
Subhash Light House Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) ST not leviable on supply of gensets for short period as it is amounts to deemed sales The CESTAT, New Delhi in M/S Subhash Light House v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service [Service Tax Appeal No. 50176 of 2019 Tax, Audit-II dated February […]
Cargo Specialist Inc. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT finds that it has been recorded in the final order that the appellant – Custom Broker inspite of having already handled eight export consignment in the past, till the inspection of the 9th consignment, has never met the exporter or the owner of M/s Fashion […]
Mov and Go Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) It is the case of the Revenue that on examination of the shipping bills filed online by M/s. Mov and Go Logistics, Customs Broker (appellant herein) on behalf of the exporters, it is found that the appellant had furnished wrong Rotation number for the shipping […]
The goods declared as scrap have been sold by the appellant to companies engaged in scrap management which have a certificate issued to them by the Principal Environment Commissioner, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, for procurement and recycling of scrap under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Further, the invoices through which these goods were sold to these companies also describe the good as scrap only.
Interest was not leviable by Commissioner under Cenvat Credit rules as Commissioner, on his own, examined as to whether assessee was eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit under rule 11 or rule 3(2) of the 2004 Credit Rules however, assessee had not made any such claim for availing the credit. It was, therefore, not possible to uphold the order passed by Commissioner.
Heavy Vehicles Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) provisions of Rule 4 are very clear as regards the time limit for availment of Cenvat credit. We find that the provisions of Rules cannot be read in isolation. The entire set of Rules covering availment/utilization of credit i.e., CCR, 2004, has to be […]
Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Principal Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of […]
Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) In valuation, rejection of the declared amount is a pre-requisite because the relevant Rules afford consequential alternatives but rejection of declared classification at the outset carries the burden of saddling the exercise with re-classification that may not meet the test of General Rules for […]
