M/s. ACC Limited (Unit: Madukkarai Cement Works) Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is clear that the litigation with regard to the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2009 has continued till 27.02.2018 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore has set aside the demand, interest and penalties confirmed in the […]
As per section 114AA, penalty can be levied only when a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document, which is false or incorrect.
Section 142 (3) is the transitional provision for claim of refund after the introduction of GST Act, 2017. It says that refund claims of any amount paid under the erstwhile law have to be disposed according to the provisions of the erstwhile law and the amount has to be paid in cash. The appellants have paid the tax under the erstwhile law. In the present case, the claim is only for refund and not proceedings for assessment or adjudication.
Tata Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Excise duty shall not be imposed on the generation of aluminum dross and skimming in the manufacture of aluminum castings/parts of motor vehicles. Held: The issue arose for consideration was whether the aluminum dross and skimming arising out of the manufacture of aluminum motor […]
CESTAT held that when road construction is exempt, every activity related to the road construction is exempt including consulting engineer services, thus, the assessee providing consulting engineer services in the matter of road construction is entitled to get exemption under Sl. No. 13(a) of the Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated June 20, 2012
Exemption of excise duty could not be denied for mere taking credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods as if assessee was availing such Cenvat credit and such wrongly availed Cenvat credit could be recovered under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, recovery of an amount under Rule 6(3) was without the authority of law and hence demands could not be sustained under Rule 6(3) and need to be set aside.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that among other submissions the learned counsel has also made reference of Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 whereby the assessment can be amended by Reassessment of Bill of Entry. However, on query from the bench learned counsel fairly submits that they have […]
Bochasanwasi Shri Aksharpurushottam Swaminarayan Sansths Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the second issue i.e. rate of interest, the rate of interest is statutorily prescribed under section 27(A) read with Notification issued there under according to which 6% as rate of interest was prescribed. The departmental officer is bound to follow the statutory provision strictly […]
-We find that the ‘Commercial training/ education/ coaching’ provided by the appellant imparts skills to the students/ trainees to enable them to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly upon completion of the course.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere failure to pay Excise Duty, not due to fraud or wilful misstatement is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation and the Central Excise Officer should have issued notice within one year from the relevant date.
