CESTAT set aside the order confirming the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on the amount written off as bad debts. Further, held that there is no such provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or in Finance Act, 1994 for reversal of CENVAT credit for the services provided for which no consideration for service provided is received by an assessee.
Biostadt India Ltd Unit II Vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Chandigarh) We find that appellant is clearing Biozyme in the packages of less than 10 litres or more than 10 litre cleared under chapter heading 31051000 was accepted by the department. With regard to the goods which are less than 10 litres, the […]
Gautam Industries Vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Chandigarh) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Chennai-II vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd – 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad.) has held that the assessee is entitled to payment of interest from the date of deposit till the date of realization. He also submitted […]
Riba Textiles Limited Vs CCE & ST, Panchkula (CESTAT Chandigarh) Provisions of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 clearly show that every claim of refund, every proceeding of appeal, review or reference filed/initiated whether on or before the appointed day i. e. 1.7.2017 under the existing law which means the jurisdiction for the purpose of […]
Pearl Drinks Limited Vs C.G. & S.T. Jammu (CESTAT Chandigarh) It is a fact on record that at the time of clearance of goods, the appellant paid duty and claim refund thereof only, there is a Cenvat credit relying in Cenvat credit account unutilized due to return of goods already cleared by the appellant on […]
Insecticides India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C G & S T, Jammu (CESTAT Chandigarh) It is an admitted fact that earlier orders of this Tribunal have been accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed against those orders. In the absence of any challenge to the orders of this Tribunal, the adjudicating authority […]
Additional Director General (ADG), DRI is not a proper Officer within the meaning of Section 28 (4) read with Section 2 (34) of Customs Act, 1962. Further, the said decision has been followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Quantum Coal Energy Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Steelman Industries vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
Shahi Exports Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CE & ST (CESTAT Chandigarh) I find that it is an amount paid by the appellant as service tax under protest during the course of investigation. This fact is not in dispute. When any amount paid under protest, it is neither pre-deposit nor service tax; it is only a […]
Maruti Suzuki is in appeal against the impugned order wherein cenvat credit on event management service has been denied on the ground that the same does not cover under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as input service.
Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST- Chandigarh (CESTAT Chandigarh) The facts of the case are not in dispute that a dispute between the appellant and the revenue was going on whether they were liable to pay service tax on their activity or not on export of services for the prior period. The […]
