Mails and other electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove undervaluation in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 138C of the Act ibid as held by Anvar P. V and S.N.Agrotech. It is trite law that statements can be relied upon only if they are voluntary and true.
The issue involved in the matter is whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on ‘Tour Operator Service’ used for pick-up and drop of employees of the Appellant to and fro Andheri and Kurla to their office premises is admissible as ‘input service’ under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
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.
