It was held that Appellant is entitled to interest for the period from the date of deposit (deposit made during investigation) to till date of refund and also amounts deposited by way of pre deposit at the time of filing of Appeals, shall be entitled to interest for the period from the date of deposit to till the date of refund.
Easy Bill Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) Section 9.1 thought talks about the agreement to be on principle to principle basis as impressed upon by learned DR but perusal of this section reveals the subsequent portion explains that word principle to principle mean that the agreement is not intended to constitute a partnership, joint venture […]
Penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed for mere default/delay in payment of Service Tax in addition to the penalty under Section 78 and these penalties are mutually exclusive and even if offences are committed in the course of same transaction or arise out of same act, penalty is imposable for ingredients of both offences.
S. K. Mineral Handling Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) In this case contract is essentially for the transportation of goods which incidentally involving loading of tipper/unloading of tipper at Railway Track head/Railway Siding which cannot be taxed under the category of Cargo Handling Service simply because rates for […]
Manipal Universal Learning Pvt. Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) Brief issues that require consideration in this case or as to Whether VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) fee (both one-time fee for supply of goods and actual usage charges) charged for supply of VSAT equipment is liable for service tax under “franchise […]
Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani, when penalty is imposed on partnership firm, penalty cannot be imposed on its partner.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that Para 4.28(f) of Handbook of Procedure, 2004-09 relating to regularization of bonafide default by exporters using Advance Authorisations, cannot be applied straight away to normal imports where export obligations have been fulfilled.
appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Further, I find that the appellant has voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 which clearly complies with the conditions of the Notification.
Aviat Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) It is worthwhile to mention here that ‘trading’ is a pure sale which is subjected to the taxable jurisdiction of the provisional Government and no Service Tax liability accrues from pure sale un-associated with any service component as has been elaborately dealt by the […]
Credit cannot be denied in the hands of the recipient even if the duty was legally not payable by the supplier or that higher amount of duty has been paid by the supplier against whom the department has initiated proceedings.
