CESTAT Bangalore held that differential duty demand for extended period of limitation unsustainable in absence of suppression of fact. Accordingly, interest and penalty for extended period set aside.
CESTAT overturned the decision to demand excise duty based on the differential quantity of goods as per the ER-1 returns and the audited books of accounts. The tribunal determined that the discrepancy between the values mentioned in the RG-1 and the physical stock statement provided by the assessee was inherently inaccurate, as both values were estimated.
Advancing reasons for non-payment of service tax even though collected, it has been submitted by the appellant that during the relevant period, they were under severe financial crisis. In my view, this cannot be a reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax even though collected from the customers but not deposited with the Government.
Glider Technologies Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochin-Cus (CESTAT Bangalore) Heard both sides. 2. Learned advocate submits that they have filed necessary application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy dispute) Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) before the concerned authority and since the appeal before this Tribunal was dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit amount under Section 35F of Central Excise […]
Once there is no averment either in SCN or impugned orders regarding availment of benefits by suppression of fact or fraud, invoking extended period of limitation is not proper
During investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by the appellant. After considering the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to allege that the appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit.
Triumph India Software Services Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Managing Director of the appellant-company, appeared in person and submitted that she was the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time. Due to financial difficulties, they could not pay service tax as submitted during investigation. Regarding the appellant’s responsibility to […]
CESTAT Bangalore held that as service actually falls under works contract service, then mere registration under construction of a new residential complex and payment of service tax thereon, wouldnt hold that services was rendered under construction of a new residential complex.
CESTAT Bangalore held that process undertaken by job worker of injecting the raw materials into aerosol cans doesn’t amount to manufacture and hence excise duty demand thereon not sustainable.
CESTAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act against steamer agent unsustainable as confiscation of the said vessel for alleged violations of chapter VI of Customs Act, 1962 as well as the duty liability arising from misuse of ‘ship stores’ and ‘bunkers’ set aside.
