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.
Meera Pipes Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was observed that cross examination of witness is mandatory in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Also, it was observed that private notebook relied on without recording statements and its authors there was no legally […]
Aditya Chemicals Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Production of original VAT or Sales Tax Challans not required for grant of SAD refund unless any deficiency memo is issued The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (the CESTAT Chennai) in the case of M/s Aditya Chemicals v. Commissioner of Customs [Customs Appeal […]
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) Service Tax refund: Certificate of existing Statutory Auditor cannot be denied for earlier period The second issue is that the auditor’s certificate is not signed by the statutory auditor who was engaged during the period when the refund is […]
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore judgment in Apnacar.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, addressing refund claim on excess taxes paid, evidentiary requirements, and time limits.
Principal Commissioner, Customs Vs Dish TV India Limited (CESTAT Delhi) At the outset learned Counsel representing the appellant importer, Shri Dalmia and Shri Tagra, submitted that the SCN was issued by DRI in these matters under section 28(4) of the Customs Act demanding differential duty in respect of the goods which were assessed and thereafter […]
