CESTAT Ahmedabad held the eligible cenvat credit of service tax paid during setting up of the factory is duly available as without use of such service the appellant could not have possibly manufactured the excisable goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand under the provisions of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 unsustainable as number of installed machines before and after replacement of machines remained same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that reverse charge not applicable on bank charges in respect of the foreign currency transaction between their local foreign banks engaged in facilitating the transfer of foreign exchange.
Messrs Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the issue that whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that the input services on which the refund claim was made by SEZ is not approved by the approval committee. As per the facts of the present case the refund […]
KPG Enterprise Vs C.C.E. Jamnagar (prev.) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue mainly involved is whether MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the subject vessel imported for breaking purpose. The case of the department is that S.O. dated 20.06.2016 is issued in order to implement the UNSC resolutions and prohibited the subject vessel for entry into India […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that main allegation of manipulation of final boiling point in the test report vis-à-vis- classification of product thereof not clarified in the order Hence impugned order cannot be sustained as all the charges flow from fundamental charge of manipulating test report.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty passed on via supplementary invoice is eligible for cenvat credit as it is not due to reason of any suppression of fact, fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement, etc and hence not barred by provisions of Rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Admittedly the appellant’s product is not in conformation to BIS standard as specified in notification. They have not obtained any ISI certificate. Therefore, exemption of SSI notification 08/2003-CE as amended, is not admissible to appellant
Rajesh Kumar Narula Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the fact that the period involved in the present case is 2004-05. The offence of issuing bogus LR can at the most fall under the provision of Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the said provision […]
If appellant have not availed Cenvat credit in respect of input service used in exempted goods and if at all the same is availed and subsequently reversed proportionate credit, the assessee is not required to pay 5%/ 10%.
