Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The department wants to deny benefit of the CENVAT credit on the ground that ‘services related to setting up of a factory’ which were specifically included prior to 1.4.2011 were no longer specifically included post 1.4.2011. We find that the definition of ‘input […]
Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi observed that Carting Challan is not equivalent to a Consignment note. Carting Challan is only for internal control of forest department whereas a Consignment Note is a negotiable instrument in which the transporter is bound to deliver the goods to a bonafide holder of title.
Appellant is entitled to refund of the amount of Cenvat Credit lying in their Cenvat Credit account on closure of business along with interest.
It is the settled law that when both board’s circular and the judgment of Court of law is prevailing and the judgment has contrary view than to the board circular in such case the Court’s judgment will prevail over the board circular.
Appellant availed credit on the Service tax paid and applied for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CENVAT Credit Rules) for the period July, 2013 to September, 2013.
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Interest earned on gold loans is taxable and does not fall within negative list as Section 66D(n) of the Act excludes interest earned only on monetary Loans and advances, but not to lending of Gold. Revenue is of the opinion that only if […]
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is with regard to the re-credit availed by the appellants on 29.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.20,83,773/-. As explained by the learned counsel for the appellants, the said re-credit is not adjustment of the excess reversal of proportionate credit in terms of Rule […]
The second allegation is that appellants have violated Regulation 5(n), by allowing unauthorised persons to enter into the area. Though, it is stated in the show-cause notice that the appellants have allowed unauthorised persons to access the premises, there is no evidence to support the same. The details of such unauthorised persons seen in the premises are not furnished by department. The allegation without support of any evidence cannot sustain.”
CESTAT had deleted the penalty imposed by the Customs Department and held that no penalty could be levied under section 117 if there was no willful intention / wrongful mind for violating the law and such violation occurred was only due to inadvertent omission / system error.
Explore Angallamman Knit Fabrics vs Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT Chennai sets aside confiscation of export goods and penalties. Full judgment here.
