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
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Adani Power, confirming Commissioner (Appeals) authority to remand matters to Adjudicating Authority under Section 35 A of Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that construction of new buildings or civil structures as turnkey projects falls under Works Contract Service. Analysis of Kirti Infrastructures Ltd case.
Department contended that such services, even when provided by foreign banks, fall under the category of banking and financial services as per the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, they claimed that the service tax should be imposed on the appellant as the recipient of these services.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s re-adjudication directive on rejection of transaction value or NIDB data of imported goods. Read the full order details here.
Read the analysis of the Welspun India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CESTAT Ahmedabad case, where CESTAT quashes the reversal of CENVAT credit on Cotton Terry Towels due to non-insertion of Rule 11(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad order on the determination of Cenvat Credit for SS Pipes, Valves, and more. The matter is remanded for reconsideration based on new judgments.
Analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad case between Qumruzzama Khan & C.C.E & S.T.-Vapi regarding penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
