CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deposit in PLA is not a payment of duty. Accordingly, refund claim for unutilized balance in PLA is not hit by limitation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services provided to the State of Jammu & Kashmir are not liable to service tax, as Section 64 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 excludes the applicability of service tax to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, hence these services are neither taxable nor exempted.
Rudraksh Detergent And Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E.-Kutch (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the re-credit claimed by the appellant is correct or not in terms of para 2C of area based exemption Notification No. 39/2001- CE dated 31.07.2001. This appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order whereby […]
Apollo Construction Projects’ service tax dispute with ONGC, GWSSB, and AUDA. CESTAT Ahmedabad sets aside tax demand on road construction services provided to GWSSB and AUDA.
Gujarat Insecticides Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that activity of the appellant is indeed manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of CEA, 1944. As per the definition of business auxiliary service manufacture of excisable goods in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clearly […]
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.
