Hakamichand D & Sons Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant has supplied bedroll kits to passengers of Air-Conditioned class and other classes on behalf of IRCTC. As per the contract with IRCTC, the Appellant has to compulsorily provide the bedroll kit to passengers on demand. For the said services a monthly bill was raised […]
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) SEZ Act allows duty free receipt of services required for the authorized operations. Notification No. 12/2013-ST provides the route of refund of such service tax paid. There is no requirement of approval of any specified service by approval committee in the SEZ Act. Requirement arise only […]
Seabird Marine Services Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Facts- These appeals are filed by the M/s Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Allcargo Logistic Ltd., and Honeycomb Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against demand of Service Tax on “Storage and Warehousing services” allegedly provided by the appellant’s, demand of […]
Spray King Agro Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Facts- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Brass parts of agricultural products falling under Chapter sub- heading 8424900 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As per the Notification No. 03/2005-CE dated 24.02.2005, Brass parts of Agriculture Products are exempted from […]
C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot Vs Sanghi Industries Ltd (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Undisputedly, the guesthouse is used for operations of the factory. Nothing is available on record to show that guesthouse is used for any other purpose. In view of this fact, since guesthouse used for operations of factory which has direct nexus with factory which produces excisable […]
Mere entries in third parties’ records of Transporters and brokers cannot be basis for clandestine removal. It is settled law that documents recovered from a third party can be used against the manufacturer to prove clandestine removal only when these are supported with corroborative evidences.
It is well settled by decisions of Tribunals and higher forums that for cases of such alleged clandestine manufacture and clearances, fundamental criteria have to be established by the Revenue and there should be tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance of such goods and not undue inferences or unwarranted assumptions.
Apex Court in the case of Balarampur Chini Ltd. (supra) and DSCL Sugar Ltd. (supra) has enunciated the principal that Bagasse/ Press mud produced during the course of manufacture of sugar cannot be treated as exempted products and the provision of Rule 6 of Central Excise Rule, 2004 cannot be applied
Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute in the fact that the sale of goods is on FOR basis, freight and transit insurance is included in the price of the goods and the same was not collected from the buyer of the goods. In this background, the place […]
CESTAT set aside the order denying the CENVAT Credit to the assessee in respect of outward Goods Transport Agent supply for period prior to April 01, 2008. Held that, the CBIC has prescribed certain conditions for allowing credit which need to be satisfied and remanded back the matter for passing a fresh order after verifying the documents to ascertain that whether the assessee has fulfilled such conditions.
