Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit IV) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital […]
Bhavani Industries Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Issue lie in narrow compass that whether the appellant is eligible to Cenvat Credit in respect of Service Tax paid by Product Recall Insurance Policy. As per the facts of the case the Product Recall Insurance Policy is taken by the appellant, as per condition of sale […]
Hon’ble CESTAT Ahmedabad on the current issue observed that even though the reversal was not made under protest, the Appellant has the right to claim refund within one year as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act,1944 (CE Act). Noted, that the Appellant not filing the application under protest letter while reversing the credit refund cannot be rejected on this ground.
CESTAT, Ahmedabad held that the Product Recall Policy expenses is born for the purpose of security of the goods and for this reason the service falls under the definition of input services and is therefore, eligible for CENVAT Credit.
Sunbright Cement Agencies Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) (CESTAT Mumbai) What is important to note is that even the initial period of three months provided for in sub-section (3) of section 85 of the Finance Act for presenting an appeal begins to run from the date of receipt of the order. The order was received […]
Virmati Software And Telecommunications Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regards the demand of Rs. 47,43,442/- which represent service tax on difference between the telephone recharge amount received from customers and amount out of the same paid to telecom companies. In this fact, it appears that difference amount is […]
I hold that e-rickshaw kits in CKD condition imported in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be treated as a complete vehicle only for the purpose of customs tariff, and not for interpretation of the Import Export Policy /Foreign Trade Policy, or for the purpose of the CMV Act and the Rules thereunder.
The provisions of the Customs Act and that of the HCCR do not absolve the custodian of the responsibilities as mentioned in these Regulations to be observed by the Custodians itself, the CESTAT do not find any infirmity with the order under challenge where simultaneously penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant as well.
Appointment of the custodian was mainly for the purpose of getting the customs formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for home consumption or for depositing in a warehouse was passed by the proper officer. Refund application was rightly rejected as neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act was available to assessee.
IBM India Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore-ltu (CESTAT Bangalore) Admittedly the appellants are providing the services to their foreign company situated outside India and their parent company does not have any commercial or industrial establishment or any office in India and the services by appellant are provided in relation to provision of service recipient […]
