CESTAT Allahabad rules on Service Tax exemption for construction of slaughterhouse. Detailed analysis of Commissioner vs. Meatek Food & Machineries case.
CESTAT Allahabad rules in Jalan Con Cast Ltd. vs. Commissioner case. Detailed analysis on department’s power to retain deposited amount under protest.
CESTAT Allahabad remands matter on customs action due to department’s failure to dispatch order to assessee, challenging the bar of limitation under Section 128.
Interest for period after 3 months refund of 19 crores of cenvat credit was allowable after expiry of three months from the date of filing the claim to the date of claim. In the present case refund claim was filed on 27.12.2012 the period of three months will be over on 26.03.2013. They would be entitled to the interest for the period beyond 26 March, 2013 to the date of payment i.e. 21.05.2013, which was about 55 days.
In this analysis of Tehsildar Koil Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Allahabad rules on time-barred appeals, emphasizing the 30-day limit for filing
CESTAT Allahabad held that in case of foreign export proceeds, the Indian Exporters are not the recipient of services from the Foreign Bank/ intermediary bank. Accordingly, demand of service tax as service recipient on bank charges thereon unjustified.
CESTAT Allahabad held that SAD (Special Additional Duty) is not leviable on the goods cleared in DTA as samples from EOU by availing of exemption from payment of Sales Tax/ VAT.
CESTAT Allahabad dismisses appeal due to delay in filing beyond 30 days, citing statutory limitations. Detailed analysis of the ruling’s implications.
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable
