CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as investigating officers failed to comply with conditions of section 36B of the Central Excise Act with respect to obtaining certificate prior to relying upon the computer printout. Hence, demand set aside as based on unauthenticated data.
Relief to Videocon Industries, Interest of Refund allowable even if Refund was Granted after 3 Months from Date of Commissioner’s Order: CESTAT
Read the full text of the CESTAT Ahmedabad order in Gujarat Insecticides Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T. where no service tax was imposed on manufacturing through job-work.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Delhi order on Agarwal Aluminiums vs. Commissioner, where area-based excise duty exemption was denied due to production date.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) can only be made applicable against the manufacturer/service provider or the person who availed the allegedly inadmissible credit and accordingly recovery of CENVAT Credit against Input Service Distributor unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that where the value has already been split as per the state law and VAT has been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax can be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that construction service provided under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) are exempted from the clutches of service tax. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
Learn about CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on Cenvat credit for construction services in case of General Motors India. Analysis and implications explained.
Explore Bodal Chemicals Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T. case where CESTAT Ahmedabad remands matter pending a Supreme Court decision on Cenvat credit for exempted goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling on excise duty for physician samples sold to dealers for free distribution to doctors. Analysis of Sun Pharmaceuticals vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii case.
