Suvikram Plastex Pvt Ltd Vs CCT (CESTAT Bengalore) Transition of unutilised Input Tax Credit could be allowed only in respect of taxes and duties which were subsumed in the new GST Law. Admittedly, the three types of Cess involved before us, namely Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess were […]
Traco Cable Company Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Respondent Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) The first question as to whether the supplementary invoices relate to the date of original clearance or the date on which the supplementary invoice was raised has been decided by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India. Accordingly, interest under Section 11AB […]
Sherly Sany Vs C.C, Cochin (CESTAT Bangalore) It is arbitrary not to give option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation to the person in possession of Gold While quashing an order of the customs authorities, CESTAT, Bangalore held that the order of confiscation without offering an option to pay fine to the person in […]
Nizar Moulavi Abdul Khader Vs Commissioner of Customs Mangalore (CESTAT Bangalore) Order-in-Original records a finding that gold was found in the foot band worn for medical purpose on both the feet of the appellant, well hidden/covered with black socks, shoes put over them. This is claimed as having been found on the ‘person of the […]
CESTAT held that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not be applicable.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore judgment in Apnacar.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, addressing refund claim on excess taxes paid, evidentiary requirements, and time limits.
IBM India Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore-ltu (CESTAT Bangalore) Admittedly the appellants are providing the services to their foreign company situated outside India and their parent company does not have any commercial or industrial establishment or any office in India and the services by appellant are provided in relation to provision of service recipient […]
Sales marketing and support services provided to its group companies are export of service because the said services have been provided on principal to principal basis and there is no element of principal-agent relationship.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal provided relief to the Appellant by allowing the CENVAT credit on tower materials and prefabricated buildings or shelters by relying on the Judgment of Vodafone pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which have relied on the Judgment of Solid and Correct Engineering Works which laid down the permanency test.
Appellant contended that accumulated credits of Cesses were not transitioned into GST regime due to specific restriction under Section 140(1) of CGST Act. Appellant therefore had to resort to the option of refund under existing law to avoid lapsing of credit.
