The raw material supplier cannot be implicated for clandestine removal of the goods by the buyer of the raw material.
B T Patel & Co Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the learned Commissioner in denying the exemption by made a strict interpretation of language of the notification no. 4/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004 though as per the language of the exemption of service provided to SEZ developer or to the unit in SEZ. […]
Harish Tex Mach Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In terms of Notification No. 6/2005-ST, the exemption was provided upto the aggregate value of Rs. 4 lakh in the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Rs. 8 Lakh in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Accordingly, the value of taxable services of the […]
CESTAT held that penalty under Rule 15(1) on the present appellant, who is merely an employee of the Company, is not sustainable.
Pawan Edifice Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute on the fact that the appellant have been providing the construction of residential complex along with material and they have paid the VAT to the State Government. In this regard, they have also produced the VAT returns. In […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that value of clearance of two entities having same partners are to be clubbed and excise duty on clearance exceeding the eligible limit of SSI exemption is duly payable.
Ocean Freight/ Sea Transportation service is liable to service tax or otherwise is decided by Gujarat High Court in case of SAL Steel Limited
CESTAT held that under Section 11B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the period of one year will not apply if assessee paid duty under protest.
Banas Enterprises Vs C.C.E & S.T. Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit by M/s. Tarun Polymers, Daman, who has wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit of huge amount of 29170642/-. In order to avail this fraudulent Cenvat credit by M/s. Tarun Polymers, Daman, all buyers […]
CESTAT find that Adjudicating Authority has denied classification of service under Works Contract solely on the basis that appellant have not produced any evidence to show that the appellant have been paying VAT/ Sales Tax on the execution of contract.
