CESTAT Ahmedabad held that single invisible contract involving supply of raw material and construction activity is classified under works contract hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. However, in case of divisible works contract clearly defining value of service portion and raw material is classifiable under ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’ prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in terms of rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, the abatement of duty deposited in advance is available in respect of one of the machines of the manufacturer which was not engaged in the manufacture of notified goods i.e. branded and unmanufactured tobacco without lime tube for continuous period of 15 or more days.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of segregation can be allowed only if the imported scrap contained impurities like iron, rubber, plastic, steel etc.
Analysis of C.C. Ahmedabad vs Smaltochimia India Pvt Ltd case involving customs duty classification dispute for ‘Twin Vision Scanner’ and related equipment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that CENVAT credit of excise duty is allowable even when 5% of the value of exempted goods is reversed, complying with Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty on mediator acting as a broker in dealing with trading of advance licence which was forged or obtained fraudulently unjustified as it is not established that he was aware about forged/ fake nature of licence.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that services received outside SEZ are eligible for a refund of Service Tax under Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/2009-ST dated 25.05.2009, in Zydus Hospira Oncology case.
Ruling on service tax liability for Grand Polycoats Co Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise. CESTAT Ahmedabad orders re-adjudication on the case
Tribunal held that once on a particular issue the show cause notice has been issued, on the same issue for the subsequent period no extended period can be invoked as demand for the extended period do not sustain being time bar.
The appellant at the outset submits that with effect from 01.06.2007, the new service namely Works Contract Service was made effective , classification of aforesaid service would undergone a change in case of long term contracts even though part of the service was classified under respective taxable service prior to 01.06.2007
