CESTAT Allahabad held that any delay in filing of an appeal beyond the extended period of thirty days after expiry of normal period of sixty days, cannot be condoned
CESTAT Allahabad held that in terms of rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in case appellant doesn’t appeal when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, dismiss the appeal for default.
CESTAT Allahabad held that CENVAT Credit of materials used for fabrication work of machines which are capital goods is duly available in terms of rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central GST (CESTAT Allahabad) The issue relates to inclusion of the amount collected by the appellant as Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS). Revenue’s contention is that the said collected amount would fall under the category of ‘Management Maintenance and Repair Services’ and would be liable to service tax separately. […]
CESTAT Allahabad held that clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires to be substantiated by evidence. Here, as department has not adduced any additional evidence to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal not sustained.
CESTAT held that ‘Explanation’ added to definition of ‘exempted service’ would widen the scope of the provision and will have prospective effect and cannot be applied retrospectively.
Krishna Construction Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Allahabad) In the instance case service tax was liable to be paid at the relevant time and it is only subsequently that by a retrospective amendment, exemption was granted with a specific condition that refund could be claimed by filing it within six […]
Appellant not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules as he has not done nor has been concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, etc., of excisable goods.
Held that mandatory deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act cannot be made by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under CGST Act.
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of deliberate suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty
