We find that review of an Order-in-Appeal involves application of mind and that the mind of the Committee of Commissioner was exercised so as to accept the impugned Order-in-appeal, and hence the question of once again reviewing the Order-in-Appeal does not arise. Further, the clarification is contrary to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association – 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC) = ( 2009-IST-07-SC-ST) , upholding the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court w
It is not known as to why the Assistant Commissioner chose not to give a personal hearing which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The original authority has shown total disregard for the principles of natural justice in not granting personal hearing before passing the adjudication order. There is no indication that the respondent was delaying the adjudication proceedings as the reply has been promptly submitted by the respondents as has been duly noted by the original authority. He has held that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the charge raised by them on the main service provider has been included on the tenable value of the main service provider
The respondents is a manufacturer of satellite components and aircraft components classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 88033000 and they are paying excise duty on these goods. They are also providing service of renting of immovable property coming under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have availed credit of excise duty paid on capital goods and inputs and service tax paid on input service.
Explore the CESTAT judgment upholding precedent decisions on EOU duty discharge and DTA sale eligibility. Know the legal insights in this insightful read.
Payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play.
Refund – export of services – relevant date – The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in such a case the relevant date is the date when the payment of service (exported) is received by the assessee not the date when the service is provided. Against that order, Revenue is in appeal on the premise that the relevant date is the date of service tax paid as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. – Held that: – it is very much clear in the case of export of service, the relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee.
It is settled law that the dutiability of the final products or inputs, the benefit of cenvat credit in respect of inputs and input services is made available, provided the assessee has necessary documentary evidence and necessary evidence to show utilisation of such input services and in this case, there is no finding that input services were not utilised in providing output services, for which service tax has been paid.
9. This Court in the Tax Appeal No.1367 of 2009 has taken the view that on a conjoint reading of sections 76 and 80 of the Act, it is not possible to envisage a discretion as being vested in the authority to levy a penalty below the minimum prescribed limit. If the authority imposing the penalty is not entitled to levy below the minimum prescrib
We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and, prima facie, we hold that the liability to tax shall arise only from 16.6.2005 consequent upon amendment enlarging the scope of the impugned services. The decision relied upon by the learned Consultant is in support of the case of the applicant. In view of the above, we hold that the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per impugned order. Accordingly we waive pre-deposit of balance amount of dues as per impugned order and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal.
We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in 2009 (15) STR 254 (Trib), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes.
