CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as there was no manufacture of fresh goods there cannot be a duty demand under rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 merely for reason of clearance after 6 months.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Whether the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs and packing materials used in the manufacture of medicament (exhibit batches) and the same is tested for trial and quality purpose and were destroyed / disposed off within the factory thereafter? CESTAT find that there is […]
Shubhlakshmi Polysters Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the adjudication authority in respect of disputed input services denied the credit without discussing the nature and use of the services in the Appellant’s factory. In order to find out the eligibility of a particular service as ‘input service’ under such definition, the nature and […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that where during the provision of Authorized Service Station Services, the spare parts and lubricants sold and VAT thereupon was paid the value of such spare parts and lubricants would not attract Service Tax.
Advance Computer Education Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The appellant also raised a point that they are eligible for exemption on the vocational training service. In this regard we find that Computer Education service has been excluded from the Vocational Training service by Notification No. 19/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005. In this case […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that allegation of clandestine removals based upon the confessional statement of other persons or the documents recovered from the third party premises, without corroboration of the said documents is unsustainable
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Alloy Steel Forging (machined) requires to undergo further operation to be ready to use as Rings for Bearing etc. Hence the same is classifiable under tariff heading 7326 Other Articles of Iron or Steel and not under chapter 84.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that direct participation and knowledge on the part of the person has to be established. In absence of sufficient evidence, penalty u/s 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be levied.
In the present case, admittedly the whole of the service was provided outside India and received outside India, therefore, even in terms of the said rule, the service tax is not leviable on the Business Exhibition Service received by the appellant which was performed outside India hence not taxable in the hands of the appellant.
Ratnamani Metal And Tubes Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that there is no dispute to the use of the subject second hand office furniture/equipment in relation to the manufacturing of goods and hence the subject goods are part of complete stainless steel tube manufacturing plant. The authorities below have nevertheless taken […]
