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
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.
