Sunrise Containers Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) There is no dispute that the legal case was filed by the Distiller’s Association of Maharashtra which consists of many member manufacturers. Therefore, the beneficiary of the outcome is not only the appellant but all the members which means that the service was availed by all […]
Monarch Research & Brokerage P Ltd Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax – Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in this case is whether NSE/BSE transaction charges and SEBI turnover fees paid by the stock brokers to the concerned agencies and recovered from their client is liable to service tax under the category of stock broker service. On […]
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.
