CESTAT Ahmedabad held that adjudicating authority cannot reject the documentary evidence without verifying the authenticity of the same. Rejection of the documents without ensuring the authenticity is gross violation of principle of natural justice which is untenable in law.
It appeared that any service availed after clearance of finished goods beyond the place of removal is not an input service and therefore, the appellant are not eligible to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward GTA service.
Org Informatics Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Submission of appellant is that Such matter cannot be taken as evasion of service tax, the matter is revenue neutral as the Cenvat credit of service tax is always admissible and it is a fit case, for invocation of Section 80 of the […]
Sai Pooja Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT observed that the taxable services in relation to provisions of Outdoor Caterer is defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 and attracting payment of service tax on the provisions of such services. However we find that there is Exemption vide […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the coverage and taxability of foreign agent service which are alleged to have been received outside India needs proper examination and hence directed for de novo adjudication
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as excise duty is levied on the entire value of supply of machinery. Hence, service tax cannot be demanded separately on activity of erection, commissioning and installation of the said machinery.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. are exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Notification No. 45/2010–ST dated 20.07.2010
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Amar Cold Storage’s favor. DGFT clarification on DEPB entry Sr.No.2/66 prevails, reversing Customs Department.
Variety Lumbers Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The refund claim was admittedly not filed within the period of one year as prescribed in paragraph 2 of clause C of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 and the same stands filed within a period of one year from the date of order of Hon’ble […]
CESTAT held that the Service Tax is not liable to be paid on the amount collected from the customer as interest free security deposit against trading of shares which is subsequently refunded without utilization.
