CENVAT credit is available on the amount of service tax paid for the services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellant for fulfilling the warranty obligations of the appellant.
CESTAT set aside the demand order has held that invoking extended limitation period by the Revenue Department cannot be sustained, being time barred and is invalid in absence of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of assessee.
Inductotherm India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Only ground on which the department has been denying the exemption Notification No. 25/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 is that the subject imported goods are exempted only if it is imported and used by the IT Industries whereas, in the appellant’s case the industry is not IT Industry but […]
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of […]
Suzuki Morots Gujarat Private Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the classification of the disputed goods, in question, under heading 8708, has not given any finding as to whether all the above conditions which are very important for deciding the classification of goods, satisfy / comply in respect of the disputed […]
Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Anil Dudalal Kaneria vs C.C.E. Understand the penalty reduction from INR 5 Lacs to INR 1 Lac for failure in goods accounting. Details and implications.
we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad case – Anjaleem Enterprise P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Learn how lower authorities violated Tribunal orders on duty, depreciation, and payment.
Held that a person carrying on a business through a branch or agency in any country shall be treated as having a business establishment in that country and such establishment situated abroad as a separate person.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Introduction The case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T. revolves around the interpretation and applicability of Notification No. 29/89-C.E. dated 01.03.1989. This article delves into the details of the notification, the conditions for its benefit, and the subsequent legal proceedings. Detailed Analysis […]
