CESTAT Bangalore

Penalty under excise Rules cannot be imposed merely for mere non-filing of separate appeal by Managing Partner

M/s. Rajhans Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

M/s. Rajhans Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the firm and set aside the duty demand and the penalty; however, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm was upheld on the ground that no separate [&hel...

Read More

Prior to 01.04.2011 CENVAT credit eligible on insurance premium in respect of dependent/family members of employees

M/s. BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)

Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of different models of EPABX. They are availing CENVAT Credit on certain inputs and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004....

Read More

Air Travel Agency & Outdoor Catering Service are Input Services

M/s. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

The CESTAT, Bangalore bench, while allowing Cenvat Credit to M/s. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd, recently held that Outdoor Catering and Air Travel Agency service are Input Services. ...

Read More

STPI Certificate not required to claim Refund under Business Auxiliary Services

Nvidia Graphics Pvt Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the common impugned order dated 2.8.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has disposed of four Orders-in-Original. ...

Read More

Statutory time limit is applicable to claim of refund of service tax paid mistakenly

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs. M/s. Cannanore Handloom Exports (CESTAT Bangalore)

The Bangalore bench of the CESTAT, last week ruled that limitation cannot be invoked for denying refund of service tax paid by assessee by mistake under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994....

Read More

Rebate of Excise duty where customs duty component is claimed as drawback

Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut Commissionerate Vs M/s. Orion Battery (CESTAT Bangalore)

Appellant is eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, even in case where customs duty component is claimed as drawback. ...

Read More

Redemption fine of 10% & penalty of 5% of value of goods is sufficient punishment to importer

Sai International Vs Shri S.S Garg (CESTAT Bangalore)

Issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been settled and now various Benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that the redemption fine of 10% of the value of the goods and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods is sufficient punishment to the importer. Therefore, following the ratios of various […]...

Read More

Tribunal's decisions binding on lower authorities

K.R.S. Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore (CESTAT Banglore)

It was held that the Tribunal's decisions are binding on the lower authorities and cannot be ignored on the sole ground that the Revenue may prefer to file appeal against the same before the higher authorities until and unless the same is set aside by a higher forum. ...

Read More

Excess Cenvat due to calculation mistake is not wrong availment

M/s. TNT (INDIA) PVT LTD Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)

In the case of M/s. TNT (INDIA) PVT LTD Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax BANGALORE-III, it was held that where the credit taken was based on the documents where service tax on the input services was paid in excess mainly on account of wrong calculation by the appellant....

Read More

CENVAT credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge

M/s GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore (CESTAT Bangalore)

On a perusal of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgement, I have found that the period of dispute involved in that case was prior to April 2006. The Hon’ble High Court, on a set of facts similar to the facts of the instant case, framed the following question of law...

Read More
Page 1 of 1012345...10...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,724)
Company Law (3,807)
Custom Duty (6,921)
DGFT (3,658)
Excise Duty (4,127)
Fema / RBI (3,449)
Finance (3,656)
Income Tax (27,216)
SEBI (2,882)
Service Tax (3,352)