It was held that In case of amalgamation of companies appointed date as per Amalgamation Scheme is required to be taken as the date of amalgamation and not the date on which entire formalities were completed and the service provided by assessee from the appointed date to Amalgamating Company is to be considered as provided to self, in which case, no service tax liability would arise against them.
It was held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, otherwise there would be no situation for which ordinary limitation period would apply.
CESTAT, Mumbai held that reimbursement of the cost of obtaining and employing resources/certain expenses incurred by the Appellant on the behalf of the Group Companies cannot be regarded as consideration flowing to the Appellant towards the taxable service provided by the Appellant rather the receipts are towards the reimbursements of the cost/expenses incurred by the assessee in terms of the cost sharing agreement with the Group Companies.
It is stated that all the operations and activities at the factory came to standstill. There was closure notice and the factory was closed. It is, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have been aware of an order stated to be pasted on its factory gate.
Assessees were engaged in the manufacture of Gas Compressor package, classifiable under Sub-heading No.8414.86 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied Gas Compressors to M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) on the basis of the tenders
Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant.
I find that the appellant shifted the machinery from their registered premises without reversal of the credit. The Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter, the appellant reversed the credit.
The appellant availed CENVAT credit during the period from June 2009 to March 2010 on the service tax paid on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of their head office. The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant is only manufacturing unit of the head office.
The Appellant is registered as Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ) as a developer of AMRL Hi-Tech City. The Appellant claimed the refund of credit paid on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“CC Rules”) read with Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated July 01, 2013.
The Department filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and raised the legal issue by submitting that the place of removal is the factory gate and the transportation of the final product manufactured by the assessee beyond the factory gate will not get covered
