Bhavani Industries Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Issue lie in narrow compass that whether the appellant is eligible to Cenvat Credit in respect of Service Tax paid by Product Recall Insurance Policy. As per the facts of the case the Product Recall Insurance Policy is taken by the appellant, as per condition of sale […]
Hon’ble CESTAT Ahmedabad on the current issue observed that even though the reversal was not made under protest, the Appellant has the right to claim refund within one year as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act,1944 (CE Act). Noted, that the Appellant not filing the application under protest letter while reversing the credit refund cannot be rejected on this ground.
CESTAT, Ahmedabad held that the Product Recall Policy expenses is born for the purpose of security of the goods and for this reason the service falls under the definition of input services and is therefore, eligible for CENVAT Credit.
Virmati Software And Telecommunications Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regards the demand of Rs. 47,43,442/- which represent service tax on difference between the telephone recharge amount received from customers and amount out of the same paid to telecom companies. In this fact, it appears that difference amount is […]
First issue is involved relates to the payment of service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of GTA services received by appellant. The appellant has paid the service tax as soon as it was pointed by the auditor and again in cash when it was pointed out that it has to be paid in cash. In these circumstances, CESTAT not find that there was any malafide on the part of the appellant. Therefore, benefit of section 80 should be extended for the appellant and penalty under section 76 and 78 are set aside. The appellant have already conceded that they are not contesting the payment of duty.
Manoj Gadhiya Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) It is apparent that the appellant was fully aware about the fictitious nature of the importers as the documents were being fabricated with his knowledge. He also admitted that he had never met the importer but solely relied on the documents submitted by High Sea Seller. His defense seems […]
Jorabhai Valabhai Rabari Desai Vs C.C. Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Shri Jorabhai Valabhai Rabari @ Desai and Shri Premabhai Jethabhai Attya @ Patel (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellants‘) have filed Appeals against the impugned O-I-O NO. AHM-CUSTM-OOO-COM-004-2018-19 dated 25-04-2018 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad wherein a Penalty u/s 112(b) of Customs Act […]
It is the settled law that when both board’s circular and the judgment of Court of law is prevailing and the judgment has contrary view than to the board circular in such case the Court’s judgment will prevail over the board circular.
Shreno Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Preferential Location Charges were correctly subjected to Service Tax at same rate as that of Construction of Residential Complex Service by the Appellant and the differential demand of Service Tax alongwith interest and penalty therefore must be quashed and set aside. The Appellant also becomes entitled to […]
Shanti Construction Co Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Retrospective exemption & refund of service tax – Tax paid utilising Cenvat credit also refundable We find that as per the facts before us there is no dispute that the tender was opened on 28.01.2015 and the appellant was declared successful bidder thereafter no separate contract/ […]
