M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs C.C.E. Kutch (Gandhidham) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the Chartered/ Cost Accountant has certified that the goods were sold on FOR basis by the Appellant and the freight/ damages in transit was responsibility of Appellant till the goods reaches the doorstep of the Customers. Also we find that the consignment […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad allows CENVAT credit on GTA services for doorstep delivery, distinguishing from Ultratech judgment. Relying on Circulars, benefit extended during the relevant period.
Compensation received by assessee in respect of collection of toll and other assorted services on behalf of the corporate entity backed by Government was liable to service tax under the head ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ (BAS).
In a case involving removal of inputs as such, CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that first-in first-out (FIFO) system must be applied and removal of inputs from the old stock of a manufacturer must be considered. t noted that that the quantity removed from time to time was carried forward from the old stock and the stock balance of the input was much more than the quantity cleared.
Employee do not have knowledge or reason to belief that goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, the penalty is not imposable on employee.
C.C.E. & S.T. Vs Hindalco Industries Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Dross and Skimming were nonferrous metal for any such by-product or waste which are non-excisable goods and are cleared for a consideration from the factory need to be treated like exempted goods for the purpose of reversal of credit of input or input service in terms […]
CCE Kutch (Gandhidham) Vs. Almac Enterprise (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is an activity without which smooth manufacturing is not possible. Commercially, manufacturing activity is not possible with malfunctioning machines, and leaking tanks, pipes and tubes.
In view of settled legal position regarding need for physical removal of capital goods or inputs, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that there is no justification to invoke such provision to demand and recover any amount from the appellant in this case
Next question needs to be considered is whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Honorable High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for […]
Honble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Courts gave the rulings that reversal of Cenvat credit will amount to not taking Cenvat credit and accordingly benefit of relevant exemption notifications was held to be available to such assessees who reverse Cenvat credit earlier taken.
