Associated Soap Stone Distributing Company Pvt Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case, the issue to be decided is that the service in question is classifiable under the category of Site Formation and clearance, Excavation and Earth Moving and Demolition service as contended by the revenue or under the category of […]
Hotel UTSAV Vs C.C.E. & S.T. SURAT-I (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the appellant have been discharging the service tax in respect of food served in the restaurant to their customers. However, they are not paying service tax in respect of packed food which is sold as take away either on the counter of the […]
Rasrasna Foods Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) ThThe brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported a consignment of Sajji Khar at Mundra Port under warehousing Bill of entry No.6272028 dated 28.12.2019. On 16.01.2020. The FSSAI authority certified that the appellant holds FSSAI license and the sample conforms to the standards […]
Swiss Glascoate Equipments Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved is whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of repair and maintenance of wind mill which is located outside the factory premises. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat Credit on the ground that the wind mill is located […]
Pramukh Realty Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have pad service tax on Construction of residential Complex for which they have entered into the agreement for sale of flats, accordingly they have paid service tax on sale of flats. Subsequently the sale of flats has […]
Voxco Pigments And Chemicals Pvt Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT AHMEDABAD) There is no dispute that the appellant had filed the refund claim on 01/06/2017 for an amount of Rs. 12,25,023/-. Thereafter, on the audit query, the appellant had decided to reduce the refund claim and, therefore, withdrew the earlier claimed and thereafter claim […]
Interest was not leviable by Commissioner under Cenvat Credit rules as Commissioner, on his own, examined as to whether assessee was eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit under rule 11 or rule 3(2) of the 2004 Credit Rules however, assessee had not made any such claim for availing the credit. It was, therefore, not possible to uphold the order passed by Commissioner.
Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly the appellant has sent the inputs chemicals for job work in the water base. The entire processed goods have been returned within 180 days. The remaining quantity was subsequently returned back though after 180 days but the same was in the form of wastage. […]
Western Corrosion Controller Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CBEC clarified vide letter DOF No. 334/1/2008- TRU dated 29.02.2008 that if VAT is paid under the category of Works Contract then the service should be classified as works contract services. In the instant case while the appellant has submitted the challans under which VAT has […]
Nirma Ltd Vs C.C.-Jamnagar(prev) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the amount for which the refund claim was sought for by the appellant is deposit or duty and accordingly, whether the refund is governed by […]
