CESTAT Held that, installation of ‘thermal insulation’ is a covered under definition of Works Contract Service & therefore, Service Tax is not demandable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009-2015 allows import of Urea through STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. Hence, goods cannot be held liable to confiscation. Consequently, no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty without granting an opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly cannot be sustained.
N R Agarwal Industries LTD Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Rent-a-Cab service. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the said service is excluded for allowing the Cenvat credit as per exclusion Clause […]
Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard, penalty imposed on Shri. Suresh Nair employee of the appellant’s Company. I find that the issue of correct calculation of Cenvat Credit on the invoice issued by the 100% EOU was always in dispute, therefore, mala fide cannot be attributed to the employee […]
CESTAT not find any error in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173 Q read with Section 11 AC as in the instant case all the charges have been confirmed and the charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11 AC and thereafter. Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the order is passed without examining the admissibility of input services credit under the main part of the definition of input service, the same is vague and non-speaking order.
CESTAT held that NSDL/CSDL charges being statutory charges as per SEBI Rules should not be included for the purpose of service tax.
Denial of refund of Service Tax paid on Banking and Financial Services – The said refund has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to correlate the services availed with the exports of goods.
In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the department’s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended.
