Once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity as there is no difference between the partner and the partnership firm.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs DRP Malleables Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant Service is specifically covered under the scope of input service and the assessee is eligible for availing credit.
It is stated that all the operations and activities at the factory came to standstill. There was closure notice and the factory was closed. It is, therefore, impossible for the petitioner to have been aware of an order stated to be pasted on its factory gate.
Assessees were engaged in the manufacture of Gas Compressor package, classifiable under Sub-heading No.8414.86 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied Gas Compressors to M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) on the basis of the tenders
Appellant submitted the reconciliation statement in respect of the shortage of the goods in their factory against which the demand was raised. It is seen from the impugned order that the authorities below has mainly proceeded on the basis of various statements and ignored the evidences placed by the Appellant.
I find that the appellant shifted the machinery from their registered premises without reversal of the credit. The Central Excise Officers detected the irregularity and thereafter, the appellant reversed the credit.
The appellant availed CENVAT credit during the period from June 2009 to March 2010 on the service tax paid on the basis of the invoices issued in the name of their head office. The Learned Advocate submits that the appellant is only manufacturing unit of the head office.
In the case of M/s. L & T Sargent & Lundy Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara, it was held that the requirement under Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to intimate the department regarding adjustment of excess service tax paid
Subic Innovative Plastics (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) had taken Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in Research and Development (R&D) and Quality Control Laboratory situated in the factory premises.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Quippo Energy Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST held that the activities carried on by the assessee on imported gensets results into existence of a more functional & operational product catering the needs of industrial consumers
