CESTAT held that, once assessee had reversed proportionate credit attributed to exempted goods, no demand of 10% of value of goods can be raised by Revenue Department.
When the test reports were available on record, there was no need to go to the website and Wikipedia for the meaning of the product.
Rule 11(3) Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 Bar of credit lapsing applicable only when assessee availed absolute exemption & not on conditional one
Without any single evidence of taking credit in SCN, the SCN is bald & proceedings flowing from said SCN liable to be quashed on this threshold point itself.
Service tax demand against famous cricketers and brothers, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan was not justified as they were not providing any service as an independent individual worker therefore, they were not liable to service tax under the Business Support Service for brand endorsement during IPL.
CESTAT Held that, installation of ‘thermal insulation’ is a covered under definition of Works Contract Service & therefore, Service Tax is not demandable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009-2015 allows import of Urea through STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. Hence, goods cannot be held liable to confiscation. Consequently, no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty without granting an opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly cannot be sustained.
N R Agarwal Industries LTD Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Rent-a-Cab service. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the said service is excluded for allowing the Cenvat credit as per exclusion Clause […]
Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard, penalty imposed on Shri. Suresh Nair employee of the appellant’s Company. I find that the issue of correct calculation of Cenvat Credit on the invoice issued by the 100% EOU was always in dispute, therefore, mala fide cannot be attributed to the employee […]
