CENVAT credit cannot be denied due to the reason that the invoices were issued in the name of head offices with centralised registration. The purpose of taking centralized registration is to help the manufacturer for availment of credit as well as distribution of credit.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs CCE, Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) In this case Department seeks to deny the Credit Credit on the two grounds, namely :- (a) at the time of receipt of capital goods in the refinery where the same had been installed for setting up Nephtha Cracker Plant, the appellant were not owner of […]
Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Appellant submitted that the Show Cause Notice having been issued by DRI, the order passed cannot sustain in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2021 (376) ELT 3 (SC). […]
Insistence on the part of appellant to deliberately classify their services under a different head shows their intention of escaping their liability for the previous period which amount to noncompliance with statutory obligations.
Royal Shelter Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The department was of the view that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the taxable services of construction of residential complex rendered by them. Show Cause Notice demanding service tax for the period January 2009 to January 2010 was issued to […]
Held that, service tax will not be levied on the donations received by a trust from its members and on freight charges paid towards the activity of advancement of yoga. Further held that, activities can’t be covered under Goods and Transport Agency Service where consignment notes have not been issued.
CESTAT find that service tax was not leviable on the services provided by the appellants, which was paid by mistake by the appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund. Limitation u/s 11B will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit.
Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly the appellant has sent the inputs chemicals for job work in the water base. The entire processed goods have been returned within 180 days. The remaining quantity was subsequently returned back though after 180 days but the same was in the form of wastage. […]
Ozone Plant Design Service Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, upon filing of the refund claims, only a deficiency memo was issued to the appellant requiring the appellant to appear on a particular date and produce the required documents indicated in the memo to substantiate the claim. What […]
GKB Vision Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-V) (CESTAT Mumbai) The twin issues that required consideration in this case are that as to whether the appellants would be eligible for the higher norms fixed by Ministry in respect of wastage/ loss/ breakage of raw materials and as to whether the demand is premature. On going […]
