CESTAT Ahmedabad

Letting Out of Port Premises cannot be classified as ‘Port Service

M/s. Kandla Port Trust Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

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 22.02.20...

Read More

ITC allowed on GTA services in case of FOR sale

M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs C.C.E. Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

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 consignme...

Read More

Toll charge Collection on behalf of corporate entity liable to service tax under BAS

M/s Larson & Toubro Limited Vs C.S.T. Service Tax  (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Compensation received by assessee in respect of collection of toll and other assorted services on behalf of the corporate entity backed by Government was liable to service tax under the head ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ (BAS)....

Read More

Employees can’t be Penalized if they are not benefitted by any act of Duty Evasion by Company

M/s Global Cambay Marine Service Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Employee do not have knowledge or reason to belief that goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, the penalty is not imposable on employee. ...

Read More

Cenvat credit eligible on expense for Repair & Maintenance of Plant & Machinery Eligible

CCE-Kutch (gandhidham) Vs Almac Enterprise (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

CCE Kutch (Gandhidham) Vs. Almac Enterprise (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is an activity without which smooth manufacturing is not possible. Commercially, manufacturing activity is not possible with malfunctioning machines, and leaking tanks, pipes and tubes....

Read More

Cenvat credit not to be reversed on transfer of capital goods to sister concerns without physical movement

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

In view of settled legal position regarding need for physical removal of capital goods or inputs, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that there is no justification to invoke such provision to demand and recover any amount from the appellant in this case...

Read More

Recovery cannot be effected 3 years from the date of SCN

Sagar Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahemdabad)

Next question needs to be considered is whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Honorable High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for […]...

Read More

Interest is leviable on credit availed even if not utilised

C.C.E. & S.T., Surat II Vs Shri Rakesh M. Shah (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Honble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Courts gave the rulings that reversal of Cenvat credit will amount to not taking Cenvat credit and accordingly benefit of relevant exemption notifications was held to be available to such assessees who reverse Cenvat credit earlier taken. ...

Read More

Personal Penalty on director for clearance of taxable goods as exempt is unwarranted in absence of their role in the same

C.C.E. Vs M/s Avi Sales Pvt Ltd. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

From the evidences as recorded and analysed in the impugned order, the role of the Director has not been specifically discussed and brought out the fact that non-payment of duty was at his instance. In these circumstances, the personal penalty on the Director is unwarranted and accordingly set aside....

Read More

Lessee cannot claim CENVAT credit on capital goods on which lessor has availed depreciation U/s. 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961

Kapstone Paper and Packaging Pvt. Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.Tax,Surat (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely paper and paperboard falling Chapter Heading 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have availed CENVAT credit of Rs.39,50,149/- on capital goods, procured on lease basis from one M/s B.G. India Energy Services P...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,050)
Company Law (4,455)
Custom Duty (7,214)
DGFT (3,864)
Excise Duty (4,182)
Fema / RBI (3,613)
Finance (3,836)
Income Tax (29,081)
SEBI (3,053)
Service Tax (3,429)