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.
Ms Great India Steel Fabricatros Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) Considering the fact that on introduction of Central GST Act, 2017, Section 142 deals the situation which directs the authorities to sanction all the refund claims in cash, therefore, no authority can sanction refund claim to be credited in Cenvat credit account. In […]
M/s. Kandla Port Trust Vs CCE&ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Letting Out of Port Premises Cannot Be Classified As ‘Port Service’ and Cenvat Credit on Telephone At Residential Premises Of Officers Allowed Since Port Operates 24*7. SERVICE TAX ON TOLL COLLECTION AND ENTRY FEE – Assessee relied on Circular no. 354/27/2012-TRU dated 22.02.2012 wherein it was clarified […]
Kent Chemicals Private Ltd Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) The proven discharge of liability by the service provider, the same is opined to be a sufficient cause for the appellant to have a bonafide impression of him to no more be liable to pay the service tax even under reverse charge mechanism. The allegation as that […]
M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs C.C.E. Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the Chartered/ Cost Accountant has certified that the goods were sold on FOR basis by the Appellant and the freight/ damages in transit was responsibility of Appellant till the goods reaches the doorstep of the Customers. Also we find that the consignment […]
The adjudicating authority has rejected the appellant’s claim of it having made the refund claim on 27.06.2017. The first appellate authority has also concluded the date of filing of the refund claim was 12.07.2017 only as against which the appellant contends that there was an attempt to file the refund claim on 27.06.2017
