Follow Us:

All CESTAT

Goods Manufactured for use by other Manufacturers cannot be subjected to Excise U/s. 4A

February 19, 2020 1344 Views 0 comment Print

T.M. Tyres Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Butyl rubber inner tubes and such product by itself is separately identifiable and is a distinct Marketable product. It cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant […]

Goods Transport Agency Services not eligible for Cenvat Credit

February 19, 2020 2241 Views 0 comment Print

The issues involved in this Appeal is whether GTA service is entitle as an input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 even after 1.4.2008 on FOR sales i.e. delivery upto the factory gate of the customers, which, according to Revenue, was beyond the place of removal?

If Designated Committee not issues SVLDRS 3 within 30 days it is a case of deemed discharge

February 17, 2020 1815 Views 0 comment Print

Exotica Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) if Designated Committee has not issued SVLDRS 3 within 30 days it is a case of deemed discharge under SVLDRS- In that circumstances, SVLDRS-3 form has not been issued to the appellant, therefore, the designated authority was duty bound to […]

Valuation – Advertisement & sales promotion expenses incurred by importer on own account, not includible

February 13, 2020 1263 Views 0 comment Print

Indo Rubber and Plastic Works Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that in absence of any condition precedent, the expenditure by the importer-appellant on advertisement and sales promotion incurred on its own account and not for discharge for any obligation of the seller (foreign exporter) under the terms of the sale, […]

Service Tax payable on Contribution to Secure Depositors Interest

February 12, 2020 882 Views 0 comment Print

Deposit Insurance Contract is also a general insurance contract as defined in law and merely because they are statutorily prescribed, they do not cease to be contract of insurance. The insurer is the Corporation, the insured are the banks and the beneficiary is the depositor(s)

Transaction Value to be accepted if there was reason to doubt truth or accuracy of such value

February 11, 2020 1269 Views 0 comment Print

Aureole Atelier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) Section 14 of the Customs Act provides that for the purpose of valuation the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, i.e. to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India […]

No service tax on interest earned by providing metal as loan

February 10, 2020 999 Views 0 comment Print

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Chennai) Revenue is of the opinion that only if the loan is in the form of Indian rupee and interest is earned on that, then alone under the provisions of Valuation Rules or Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 interest is not to be […]

Profit from mere sale & purchase of cargo space is not taxable as Business Support Service

February 10, 2020 3111 Views 0 comment Print

The facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the business as freight forwarders and provide worldwide containerised and conventional cargo transportation and logistics services. During audit of accounts, it was noticed that besides collecting various charges, such as documentation charges, examination charges, freight charges, appellants also collected amount towards purchasing of cargo space from shipping lines.

Service Tax Exemption cannot be denied on canteen maintained by outdoor caterer

February 7, 2020 5355 Views 0 comment Print

Service Tax – Irrespective of the person who maintains canteen in a factory, exemption as per Entry 19A of 25/2012-ST is available to such person – Benefit cannot be whittled down by restricting it to factory owner alone: CESTAT

Application for Compounding of Offence can’t be rejected on Technical Grounds

February 6, 2020 3213 Views 0 comment Print

The purpose of compounding of offences against payment of compounding amount is to prevent litigation and encourage early settlement of dispute. In the guidelines issued vide Circular No. 15/10/2009 no prohibition has been imposed against deciding the application for compounding

Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930