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.
Uniform Enterprise Vs C.C.E. & S.T. – Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that show cause notice was issued demanding service tax under the head of Industrial or Commercial Construction Service and in the adjudication order also the service tax demand was confirmed under the same heading. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) travelling beyond the show […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that transfer of technical know-how and patent etc. are in pursuance to the slump sale and not by way providing the service do not fall within the definition of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service and Intellectual Property Service. Accordingly, demand of service tax not sustainable.
Commission received from the financial institution towards sale of their loan product is liable to Service Tax
CESTAT find that since there is no intention of the appellant to evade any duty as the appellant have discharged the service tax and utilized the same though incorrectly but it was a revenue neutral situation as the appellant is otherwise entitled for the refund of the same amount. Hence, in absence of any mala fide penalty under section 78 is not imposable. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 78 is set aside.
Unjust-enrichment does not exist in case where assessee initially charged duty / service tax and subsequently issued credit note for the same
Dipal Narendrabhai Shah Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) These appeals are directed against the Order-In-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the original authority under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants in the present appeals were allegedly involved […]
Unnati Alloys Pvt Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Shri Jitendra Singh, Learned Counsel along with Ms. Reena Rawat, Advocate appeared for the appellants and he submits that as per the impugned order there is no independent finding against the appellants and the adjudicating authority has directly imposed the penalty without giving any reasoning. […]
R M Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the goods in question i.e. bhusi/ bhuki of pulses / pulses waste cleared from Kandla SEZ is classifiable under Chapter heading 07139099 or 11061000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and consequently whether the appellant is […]
