CESTAT find that cenvat credit was denied to appellant on the ground that service tax was paid by appellant as a recipient whereas, it was supposed to be paid by service provider
It is well settled law that the legislative intent, extending certain beneficial provision to the assessee, should not be made frivolous by interpreting the provision in a particular manner other than the one which reflects upon such intent.
Abaris Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the case on hand, from the material on records, we could see that apparently, there was an error, on the part of the CHA who inadvertently mentioned Notification No. 12/2012- Customs and accordingly discharged 5% customs duty., whereas, the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011 was […]
Appellant have reversed or paid the amount in terms of sub Rule (3) of Rule 6, therefore, as per sub Rule (3D), it will amount to not taking of Cenvat credit
Since there was failure on the part of revenue to collect any evidence in relation to either procurement of raw materials by the appellant or production of huge quantity of final goods alleged as removed clandestinely to sustain the charge of clandestine removal hence, the impugned demand was not sustainable for lack of evidences.
Marudhar Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Short issue required to be decided in this matter is as to whether such reversal of credit, either by payment of 6% in terms of Rule 6 or by debiting the same from the Cenvat credit account, would result to satisfying the condition of notification No. […]
Metadin Mali Vs C.S.T. Service Tax Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We have carefully gone through the relevant contract entered into by Appellant with M/s Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd and find that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as there was no manufacture of fresh goods there cannot be a duty demand under rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 merely for reason of clearance after 6 months.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Whether the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs and packing materials used in the manufacture of medicament (exhibit batches) and the same is tested for trial and quality purpose and were destroyed / disposed off within the factory thereafter? CESTAT find that there is […]
Shubhlakshmi Polysters Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the adjudication authority in respect of disputed input services denied the credit without discussing the nature and use of the services in the Appellant’s factory. In order to find out the eligibility of a particular service as ‘input service’ under such definition, the nature and […]
