Where preferential location charges charged by the builder includible in the taxable value of the service tax levy and no separate charge was levied, the liability to pay service tax did not arise as it was only when a particular service was separately charged that the liability to pay service tax arose.
Explore the Daurala Sugar Works vs. Commissioner of Central GST case, focusing on bagasse’s non-dutiable status and CENVAT credit implications under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004.
Explore the CESTAT Allahabad order on Ratan Textiles Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, discussing the absence of a time limit under Section 27 for refunding customs penalty and redemption fines.
CESTAT Allahabad rules that screening films in multiplexes is not a Business Support Service, quashing service tax demand on PVS Multiplex India Pvt. Ltd.
In Kancor Ingredients Ltd vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad), the court rules that accumulated Cenvat Credit refund is valid for goods exported without a bond.
CESTAT Allahabad quashes service tax demand on Indus Valley Partners, ruling classification based on non-existing provision is bad in law.
CESTAT Allahabad rules on LG Electronics India vs Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing procedural violations are not suppression for extended limitation.
CESTAT held that Department could not solely rely on audit queries and objections to invoke extended period of limitation. It reiterated that appellant, being a Private Limited Company, had its Profit/Loss Account and Balance Sheet accessible as public documents, thus undermining any allegation of suppression.
Read the detailed analysis of the CESTAT Allahabad order directing the Commissioner of Customs to return seized gold, ruling it wasn’t smuggled. Learn about the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Sai Max Jewelers.
It is settled law that appellant refund claim wherein order determining duty is not challenged and modified in appeal by appellate authority, refund claim is not maintainable.
