Dolphin Metals I Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The brief facts of the case are that based on the intelligence, an investigation was undertaken against M/s Nisha Industries which revealed that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit on invoices without actual receipt of inputs; that the finished goods were found at both the manufacturing […]
Adroit Pharmachem Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Revenue submits that after 01.04.2011, construction service was excluded from the definition of ‘Input Service’ therefore, the appellant is not entitled for Cenvat credit. Appellant has already existing factory and in the said factory, Effluent Treatment Plant was installed for which they […]
We find going by the principle of dominant use as enunciated in the judgments cited above, as we find that the tyres are basically suitable for off-road use that is in difficult terrain and rocky/muddy areas etc.
CESTAT held that, right to claim Service Tax refund cannot be denied merely on account of procedural lapse of filing TRAN-1 before December 27, 2017.
Jayesh C Patel Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute in the fact that the appellants have entered into the contract for undertaking the manufacturing of Plastic Jars and containers in the factory of the Service recipient. The charges for the job is on per container basis, the appellants are not collecting […]
Arihant Tradelinks India Private Limited Vs C.C.E., Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal held that limitation period could not be invoked as the issue involved is purely of interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, levy of CVD in terms of Customs Tariff Act, therefore malafide intention cannot be […]
It can be seen that the electricity charges which is reimbursed on actual basis in terms of the contract is not includible in the gross value of service provided by the appellant to Gujarat Gas Company Limited.
NPT Papers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) It is well settled law that even if the foreign suppliers are related to indian importers the transaction value cannot be rejected on the grounds that a transaction is between the related person when identical or similar goods were sold at the same price to unrelated […]
Riba Textiles Limited Vs CCE & ST, Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) Provisions of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 clearly show that every claim of refund, every proceeding of appeal, review or reference filed/initiated whether on or before the appointed day i. e. 1.7.2017 under the existing law which means the jurisdiction for the purpose of […]
DI Gold Designer Jewellery Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, when apparently, the show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods seized under Section 110 of Customs Act was issued after one year from the date of seizure. The show cause notice itself gets hit by limitation as the show cause notice […]
