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.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty not leviable on scrap which is neither generated from the manufacturing nor generated from the cenvatable input or capital goods.
Shree Keshariyaji Metal Impex Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that as regard the classification of goods that whether the same is Aluminium Scrap or Aluminium Sheet, the assessment was made on the basis of the department’s claim and the appellant have paid the duty. The said assessment was not challenged by the appellant therefore at […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that absolutely no indication as to how the amount received by the appellant from PGVCL would qualify as Business Auxiliary Service. Only bland allegation without any substantiation cannot be upheld.
IPCA Laboratories Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the dispute relates to demand of duty on the semi-finished goods/ work in process goods during the debonding of EOU. We find that as per the details submitted by the appellant which is not in dispute, the semi-finished goods/ work in process was […]
M R Patel & Sons Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the present case involved mix question of law and facts. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter relying on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Coal Handlers (supra) wherein it was held that the identical services are classifiable under clearing […]
Maheshwari Texturisers Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the issue involved is of levy of NCCD in respect of Partially Oriented Yarn falling under Chapter 5402 consumed actively for the manufacture of Polyester Texturized Yarn. On the said issue, there are number of judgments as cited by the […]
Adjudicating authority was supposed to give the details of methodology in stock taking and also allowed the cross-examination of panchas
Samir Transport Company Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case the penalty was imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In connection with fraudulent passing of cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s Accord Industries Limited to M/s Archon Engicon Limited. The fact is not […]
