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
Held that option is available to the appellant to claim cenvat credit on service tax paid on input services received in its SEZ units instead of claiming benefit of exemption notification.
The CESTAT, Allahabad in the matter of M/s. T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow [Service Tax Appeal No. 70377 of 2018 dated June 17, 2022] set aside the order passed by Revenue Department demanding Service tax for alleged suppression of correct value of taxable service by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Refund of credit of cess cannot be denied merely on the ground that such credit, which could not be utilized prior to GST regime, would stand lapsed.
Jhoola Refineries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Allahabad) Undisputedly, the bills of entry in this case were not assessed by the officers of DRI but by the officers of the Custom house. Only that officer who has assessed the Bills of Entry in the first place or his successor in office was ‘the […]
