Cenvat held that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat credit as the capital goods have not been physically removed from the premises where they were initially installed.
M/s Indian Institute of Management Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Ahmedabad CESTAT has dropped demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 56 crore of Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad under the service commercial training & coaching service stating that IIM A does not require any accreditation from running course. CESTAT held that recognition by […]
M/s Arti Adhvariya & Co. Vs C.S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that there is no dispute that the appellant is an individual NRI in USA. During the relevant period this Tribunal has given various judgments wherein it was held that an individual and / or proprietorship concern is not considered as a commcerial concern, therefore, […]
Casa Grande Co-Operative Housing Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) When any provision in the statute has been held to be unconstitutional, refund of tax under such statute will be outside the scope and purview of such enactment and under such circumstances, refund can be claimed by way of a suit or by way of a […]
C.C.E & C.S.T.-Bangalore Service Tax Vs Keerthi Estates Pvt. Ltd.(CESTAT Bangalore) We find that the appellant is engaged in the Construction of Residential Complex in terms of the Development Agreements entered with land owners and prospective buyers. The period of dispute is from 16.06.2005 to 31.01.2007. Further we find that an explanation was added for […]
Tessy Engineers & Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is as to whether the appellants are eligible for the credit availed on insurance services. The definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2011 excludes life and health insurance services availed for personal use or for personal consumption of employees. […]
Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) These applications of M/s Wellcast Steels Ltd, M/s Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd and of Shri R Rajendra Kumar under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 35C(2A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and with rule 41 of […]
Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) During the adjudication proceedings appellants have contended that the said activities were undertaken before sale of land took place, hence the service was a self-service and there is no service provider and service recipient relationship and therefore they are not liable for […]
CESTAT held that service rendered by ‘lead generator’ is not that of an ‘insurance agent’ and, consequently, the commission paid by respondent to such entities are not liable to be included in the assessable value of the respondent for discharge of tax liability under Finance Act, 1994.
The assessee should have been put to Notice and a reasonable opportunity should have been given for representing their case. While the same was not done, jumping straight way to coercive measures was certainly uncalled for. Therefore, Interest collected being without authority of Law needs to be refunded along with applicable interest.
