Brief issue involved in the matter is that whether the credit on inputs and capital goods / services used in fabrication, erection, installation of towers and shelters is admissible or not. Further, issue also involves that whether extended period can be invoked in the present matter.
The appellant received patterns from their customers to whom they supply the casting manufactured using the patterns. In one of the order the total cost of pattern was amortized and accordingly the appellant did not took into consideration the value of pattern while clearing the additional order.
CESTAT held that sales promotion and marketing being essential character of the bundle of services have to be classified under ‘Business Auxiliary Service’.
Ferryman Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Absolute discretion of Customs Authority either to order absolute confiscation or impose fine in lieu of confiscation CESTAT Delhi held that the confiscating officer under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 has the absolute discretion to either impose fine in lieu of confiscation or […]
Service tax had to be levied only for consideration received for service, therefore, the entire demand of service tax on reimbursable expenses collected from clients for the period post 1.5.2006 was set aside. However, to the extent assessee had collected any amount representing service tax on such expenses and interest thereon from clients, the same need to be deposited with the Government in terms of Section 73A of the Finance Act.
Kusum Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (ITAT Delhi) Facts- M/s Kusum Healthcare has preferred an appeal challenging OIO demanding tax on the finding that remittances made to their branches and offices abroad is ‘consideration’ for ‘taxable service’ procured from outside the taxable territory. Conclusion- The Tribunal in the case […]
Mechasoft Vs Commissioner of C.G.ST. (CESTAT Mumbai) Notification No. 214/86-CE (NT) though was effective from April 1996 has been amended extensively vide Notification No. 49/2002 dated 16.09.2002 so as to make the manufacturer accountable for discharging his obligation in respect of goods under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. As such when the […]
In present facts of the case, while dismissing Revenue Appeals it was held by the Hon’ble Tribunal that it is impossible to maintain separate account in respect of Input and input services received and used in the manufacture of LPG, as there is no intention to use the particular input and input services in a particular quantity used for manufacture of LPG. Further, it was also held that CENVAT Credit is also admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or by-product.
Additional Director General (ADG), DRI is not a proper Officer within the meaning of Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962. Further, the said decision has been followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Quantum Coal Energy Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Steelman Industries vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
CESTAT held that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not be applicable.
