The Tribunal held that expansion of an existing manufacturing unit cannot be treated as setting up a new factory. Credit was allowed as the services were directly linked to manufacturing and not covered under exclusion clauses.
Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner(Appeals) and ADG (CESTAT Delhi) In Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner (Appeals) and ADG, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi examined the rejection of a service tax refund claim of ₹70,46,602 filed by the appellant for the period June 2015 to […]
The Tribunal examined whether credit can be denied due to non-existent supplier addresses. It held that absence of evidence proving non-receipt of services invalidates such denial. The ruling confirms that valid invoices and payment proof are sufficient to sustain credit.
The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed where tax liability arises from retrospective amendment and conflicting legal views. The absence of clear liability during the relevant period justified waiver.
The Tribunal interpreted Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to allow refund of taxes paid under existing law. It held that such claims survive the repeal of earlier statutes. The appeal was allowed and remanded.
The case examined whether delay in filing supplementary Bills of Entry warrants penalty. The Tribunal ruled that delay caused by post-clearance discovery of excess goods is justified. The decision emphasizes discretionary waiver under Section 46(3).
The case examined whether small compositional changes affect eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal ruled that even minor variations matter under tax law. The decision emphasizes strict compliance with notification conditions.
CESTAT Chennai held that proportionate Cenvat Credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules applies only in case of common input services. The same cannot be applied to credit exclusively used in manufacture of dutiable goods. Accordingly, demand held as unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty recovery under section 28AAA of the Customs Act justifiable since IT services fraudulently mis-declared as ‘Management Consulting Services’ to obtain benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Accordingly, company appeal is dismissed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that amount deposited during the course of investigation is not voluntary payment but it was deposit made under mistaken notion and hence doesn’t amount to duty. Accordingly, interest is eligible on amount refunded.
