CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value unsustainable as approximately same price for various other consignments imported at same time and have same quantity were accepted by the department.
The ruling emphasized that limitation should not apply in such cases and that the mere filing of an appeal by the department does not withhold the refund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as DRI just prior to investigations by DGCEI took away all records pertaining to the import of scrap, the manufacturer cannot be expected to produce documents showing transport and receipt of the goods in the factory. Accordingly, demand of Cenvat alleging non-receipt of inputs set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deduction given in sales invoice being discount, even though under nomenclature of commission, cannot be treated as commission for the purpose of levy of Service Tax under ‘business Auxiliary Service’.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty imposed under Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 12 cannot be inclined for lack of due diligence on the part of the employee of CFS especially when the department did not find anything wrong when compared to employees of other CFS.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of M/s. Sophisticated Instrumentation, a charitable trust, stating that the extended limitation cannot be invoked when there is no intention to evade service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad dismisses Natural Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd’s appeal, upholding Service Tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service and rejecting financial hardship claim.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that when the agreement between the service provider and recipient is for a particular job and not for supply of man power, the activity cannot be classified under ‘Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’.
Read how Posco India successfully secured a refund of wrongly paid anti-dumping duty in a case against C.C.-Kandla, as decided by CESTAT Ahmedabad. Learn about the legal implications.
In Scaria Thomas & Co vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) case, learn about the absence of penalty under Section 78 in service tax due to no misrepresentation.
