Mammon Concast Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly the melting scrap purchased by the appellant on high sea sale, is their input for manufacture of M.S. I further find that Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by […]
Home guards department was an agency of state government and therefore, could not be considered as ‘person’ engaged in the business of running security services. Therefore, there could be no levy of service tax on security services provided by the Home Guards Department as it was a part of its statutory function.
CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the refund claims of the assessee on the ground that credit reversal in Form GSTR-3B pertains to GST credit and not CENVAT credit. Held that, procedural delay will not disentitle the assessee from claiming refund when credit had been reversed in Form GSTR-3B.
Explore the legal battle of Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd. against the Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore). Delve into the intricacies of the judgment and its implications on service tax for seconded employees.
Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST- Chandigarh (CESTAT Chandigarh) The facts of the case are not in dispute that a dispute between the appellant and the revenue was going on whether they were liable to pay service tax on their activity or not on export of services for the prior period. The […]
The issue that arises for consideration is that whether the appellants are eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax of commissions paid to commission agents in regard to sales promotion of their products. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi submitted that the department has denied the credit alleging that it is post manufacturing activity.
Explore the case of Surya Alumex vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi). Understand the implications of Rule 4(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on Cenvat credit and depreciation claims.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi decision in Shahid Ali vs. Principal Commissioner, focusing on allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration in ‘Food Supplements’ imports. Learn why the adjudicating authority’s penalty imposition on the proprietorship firm and its proprietor was deemed double jeopardy.
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Bansal Steel Power Limited vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak, highlighting the flawed investigation leading to the denial of credit on returned goods. Uncover crucial insights for businesses dealing with similar issues.
Since assessee could not discharge their responsibility of proving non-smuggled nature of the seized foreign marked gold as per section 123 of Customs Act thus, the confiscation of the gold bars, gold coins and small pieces of gold under section 111(d) and section 111(i) was correct.
