CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
CESTAT Allahabad held that as per provisions of section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting of adjournment beyond three times is unjustifiable. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax is leviable on services relating to health & fitness by way of teaching yoga and meditation under the category of ‘Health and Fitness Services’.
CESTAT Allahabad held that charge of clandestine removal cannot be imputed in absence of any evidence or in absence of an independent investigation. Accordingly, demand unjustified.
CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as repeated adjournments were asked for in mechanical and routine manner.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of refund claim of service tax under notification no. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as taxable service in respect of which refund is claim is not mentioned in the list of specified service approved by SEZ authority unjustified.
CESTAT held that if Value Added Tax (VAT) is paid on goods used in repairs, no service tax can be levied on those goods.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices evidencing the payment of service tax for period prior to amendments made in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by way of insertion of Rule 9 (1) (bb) effective from 01.04.2011 is unjustified.
CESTAT Allahabad revisits delay in appeal by E L Sewedy Electrometer due to the Director’s absence abroad. Focus on re-adjudication and merits.
CESTAT Allahabad held that tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe the rate of interest which is prescribed by the Government of India in terms of Notification issue under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
