Chiron Behring Veccines Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the appellant have made a submission about limitation and sought benefit of section 73 (3) and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard the limitation we find that the issue about taxability on reverse charge basis in respect of […]
CESTAT held that even though setting up of a new factory, construction of building of service provider is not excluded from the definition of Input service. In this case the construction of Jetty is clearly in the nature of expansion of existing Jetty therefore, credit is clearly admissible.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that extended period of limitation not invocable as non-payment of tax was on account of bona fide belief and not on account of any fraud, mis-statement etc.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that duty demand in a case of clandestine clearance cannot be sustained if there is no conclusive evidence of physical movement or diversion. The demand based on assumptions and presumptions is unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty was paid on the clearance value on which demand was raised. Accordingly as duty was paid demand under rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant is duly entitled for interest on refund of pre-deposit amount @6% from the date of deposit of pre-deposit till the date of refund in a case where the Tribunal has finally passed the final order setting aside the demand.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the value of free supplies cannot be included in the gross amount charged for the purpose of levy of service tax.
Once duty is paid on finished goods even though said finished goods attract nil rate of duty or exempted under any notification, cenvat credit on input cannot be denied
Bombardier Transportation India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T Vadodara II (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that there is no dispute that the appellant had initially filed the refund application on 13.06.2011. It is this refund claim which was rejected by the sanctioning authority and the matter had travelled up to this Tribunal. This tribunal vide […]
Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case the cenvat credit was denied in respect of service received by the appellant from M/s. Indian Hotels Co.Ltd. on the pretext that the same is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service which is not specified under Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, […]
