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.
The CESTAT, Allahabad in the matter of M/s. T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow [Service Tax Appeal No. 70377 of 2018 dated June 17, 2022] set aside the order passed by Revenue Department demanding Service tax for alleged suppression of correct value of taxable service by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Explore the CESTAT Mumbai ruling in Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of GST case on CENVAT credit refund. Detailed analysis of eligibility, rejection reasons, and legal perspective.
Held that para 2 of Circular 35/2017-Cus is clearly contrary to Section 110 A and is, consequently, void and unenforceable at law. It is not permissible for the CBEC, by executive fiat, to incorporate limitations, on provisional release of seized goods, which find no place in the parent statutory provision, i.e. Section 110 A of the Act.
Neither the submissions during the hearing nor the records of the proceedings before the lower authorities indicated correct segregation of credit taken on ‘input services’ between eligible and ineligible except to the extent that the formula had to be resorted to, therefore, the re-computation of segregation of credit restored to the original authority before whom the accountal of credit taken on ‘input service’ should be furnished by the appellant herein and to which the ratio in the formula was to be applied.
