appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Further, I find that the appellant has voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 which clearly complies with the conditions of the Notification.
Philips Electronics India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) The appellants, Philips Electronics India Ltd. are a 100% EOU (Software Technology Park Unit) are engaged in developing and export of software. No part of the output services are rendered to any client in India. The appellants have entered into various agreements with their […]
Appellants are not liable to penalty on wrong availment of GTA services up to the customer’s premises because it was an interpretation issue and was settled by the Apex Court in the year 2018in the case of Ultratech and therefore no intention to evade service tax can be imputed on the appellant.
Lulu International Convention Centre Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochincus (CESTAT Bangalore) Appellant has discharged the export obligation and has also obtained redemption certificate from DGFT. Further I find that as per the EPCG Scheme, there is a provision that extension in export obligation period beyond two years period may be considered for a […]
C.C.E & C.S.T.-Bangalore Service Tax Vs Keerthi Estates Pvt. Ltd.(CESTAT Bangalore) We find that the appellant is engaged in the Construction of Residential Complex in terms of the Development Agreements entered with land owners and prospective buyers. The period of dispute is from 16.06.2005 to 31.01.2007. Further we find that an explanation was added for […]
Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) These applications of M/s Wellcast Steels Ltd, M/s Vijayanagar Sugars Pvt Ltd and of Shri R Rajendra Kumar under section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944, read with section 35C(2A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and with rule 41 of […]
The learned AR also accepted the legal position that mandatory pre-deposit can be made through the CGST Credit. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the objection raised by the Registry is not tenable
M/s. ARCHI-TECHNICS Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) I find that there was delay in payment of service tax which was on account of the reasonable cause as the mother of one of the partner was suffering from heart problem. Further, I find that this Tribunal in the case of Raj […]
Prestige Estates Projects Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) It is seen that the amounts received by the appellants in respect of 3 activities undertaken by them i.e. ‘assignment transfer income’, assessment and bifurcation fees, ‘Khata transfer fees’ and ‘forfeiture’ amounts find their origin in the agreement with prospect to buyers in […]
M/s. R.K. Cylinders Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Going by the activity undertaken by the appellants as per the tender agreement, it is seen that he is not covered under (i) as above. Moreover, he is not a manufacturer of cylinders or he is not any person authorized by a manufacturer. It is […]
