Power Weave Software Services P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been demanded from the appellant for import of the goods being 100% EOU, who obtained permission from Software Technology Parks of India (STPI in short) and goods were also liable […]
Circor Flow Technologies India Private Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, (CESTAT Chennai) Section 142 (3) of GST Act provides how to deal with claims of refund of service tax of tax and duty / credit under the erstwhile It is stated that therein that such claims have to be disposed in […]
Commissioner of CGST & Excise Vs Asian Hotel (East) Limited (CESTAT Kolkata) In this case, I find that the contention of the appellant that he bona fidely believed that he is not liable to pay service tax but during the audit, the audit party informed him that he is liable to pay service tax, then […]
In present facts of the case, while dismissing appeal of the Revenue, the Hon’ble CESTAT observed that substantial benefit provided by Notifications can’t be denied on procedural lapse.
What had been manufactured and supplied by assessee was ‘concrete mix’, which was not dutiable. Revenue had not brought any facts on record in support of its allegation of manufacture of RMC by assessee. Therefore, ‘concrete mix’ manufactured by assessee was not dutiable under Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi grants refund to Amzole India Pvt. Ltd. on service tax. Advocate Anand Bhattacharya highlights key ruling. Legal insights on service tax dispute.
Lightspeed India Partners Advisors LLP Vs Commissioner Central Tax (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Since the GST regime has done away with the ST 3 return, there remain no provision in GST system to reflect the refund claim in the CENVAT credit balance. The only option was to show its reversal in the Books of accounts. Such […]
Notification No. 52 ibid as amended by Notification Nos. 30 and 34 ibid clearly prescribe vide new Condition No.8 which is extracted elsewhere in this order that no duty shall be leviable if raw material is destroyed within the unit after intimation to the Customs authorities.
Nava Bharat Ventures Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Rule 15 (Confiscation and penalty) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides for imposition of penalty if CENVAT credit has been wrongly availed which allegation must be made in the show cause notice with a proposal to recover such wrongly availed […]
Service Tax demand was quashed as inclusion of turnover of Manufacturing unit for quantification of amount for reversal of CENVAT Credit was appropriate since for the entire remaining activities of the Puducherry manufacturing unit, the centralized service tax registration at Bangalore was applicable, which was as a SERVICE PROVIDER as well as an INPUT SERVICE DISTRIBUTOR.
