Popular Carbonic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) (i) The issue is to whether the process of compressing carbondioxide and subsequent filling in cylinder amounts to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 of the Tariff Act has been settled in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal in […]
V.V. Minerals [100% EOU] Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) Unless there Is any provision to the contrary, the charging sections of the tax laws apply to illegal acts as they apply to legal acts and therefore tax is leviable notwithstanding that action for the illegal actions may be taken under some other […]
Maini Precision Products Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) In the present case, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit on the grounds that the appellant has failed to distribute the credit to its various units regarding common input service. The defence of the appellant that after the implementation of […]
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Baran Vs Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Division (CESTAT Delhi) There is no dispute that the relevant date in the present case is 25.11.2012. Prior to this date on 28.05.2012, section 73(1) of the Finance Act was amended and it was provided that the Central Excise Officer could issue a notice […]
GEMSCAB Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) In view of the observed admission and settled law, the question of adjudication is answered in negative holding that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the ground that the supplier was not liable to pay the duty on the goods supplied. Also it is observed that […]
The Appellants contended that the mixture manufactured by the Respondents is Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) in contrast to which the Respondents submitted that the above is rather gas condensate on which NCCD should not be levied.
SRL Advisors LLP Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) Rule 2(bc) of Service Tax Rules, refers to the meaning of ‘body corporate’ in Section 2(7) of the Companies Act, wherein any other body corporate which includes a LLP is specifically excluded from the definition of body corporate. Thus I hold that the appellant […]
CESTAT held that, there is no need to establish one-to-one correlation between output service exported and input service used in such services.
CESTAT held that, no service tax is to be imposed on liquidated damages recovered for not adhering to time limits mentioned in the contract as the same would not be covered in ‘Declared Services’ mentioned under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994
Read about CESTAT Chennai ruling exempting service tax on forfeiture of earnest money deposit and liquidated damages. Understand legal implications and clarifications under Section 66E(e) of Finance Act.
