Meghmani Organics Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the duty and interest which were already paid by the appellant on pointing out by the audit. The only limited issue to be decided by me in the given facts and circumstances are that whether the appellant is […]
Chashmita Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant is seeking benefit of Notification No. 20/2003-ST in respect of the service provided by them in respect of AVETCS system. Services provided for AVETCS as follows: “The Automatic Vehicle Entry Tax Collection System (AVETCS) of Commissioner of Transport constitutes electronic weigh bridges, CCTV system, computers, […]
Bajaj Herbals Private Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute that a fire has taken place in the factory of the appellant due to short circuit and the finished goods was destroyed along with other material like packing materials and consumables. It is observed that immediately when the fire took […]
Jay Gurudev Construction Co Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Issue involved is if the appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 15/2004- ST for the period 2005-06 and 2007-08. It is noticed that the benefit has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce any […]
Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Vs C.C. Jamnagar (Prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT observed that IBC proceedings are being initiated against many companies who are either appellant or respondent in the appeals pending before this tribunal. We observed that the revenue-department has no proper guideline as to what stand is to be taken in a case where […]
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.
