Cenvat credit eligible in respect of Cement, TMT bars, MS angles, channels, beams, racks, plates, etc. used for making foundation of machineries installed in the factory premises and also for making structures for support of the plant.
J M Huber India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Commission Agent Service provided to foreign based entity for promoting/marketing their goods in India on consideration the activity of the Indian agent providing promotion/marketing, technical support, installation, commission, etc. for sale of goods of foreign based entities in India on commission basis amounts […]
Trenching pipeline installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in operation of the SEZ is admissible and the refund of the same is clearly admissible.
B M Autolink Vs C.C.E.-Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the fact is not under dispute that the appellant being a dealer purchase the vehicles from M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and subsequently sell the same to various customers. The transaction between M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the dealer and subsequently sale transaction […]
Kohler India Corporation Private Limited vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The facts of the case, in brief, are that a team of Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of appellant and documents related to Cenvat Credit availed on services received from various service providers were called. Upon the examination of the appellant’s records/ […]
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules prescribes that if for ‘Any reason’ the use of the said credit is not possible, the manufacturer or provider of the output service shall be allowed refund of such amount. The sole reason for denying the refund claim is […]
CESTAT held that, the refund cannot be denied on the ground of double benefit to Appellant due to non-transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit. Further, interest was allowed under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 for delay of refund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as assessment of shipping bills has attained finality, classification of goods cannot be questioned subsequently by the Customs.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidence on record. Rejection of transaction value in absence of any evidence is untenable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as per the development agreement it is clear that activity of the appellant is of project developer and not as real estate agent and hence service tax not leviable.
