CESTAT Chennai

Notice against other noticees gets invalidated if SCN against main Noticee is Set Aside

Manasa Im pex Services Vs. S/ Shri S. Murugappan (CESTAT Chennai)

The Show Cause Notice has to be viewed in its entirety and cannot be vivisected as may be convenient for the Revenue. Thus, if a show cause notice is found as not valid or issued without jurisdiction in respect of the main protagonist, the very same SCN cannot be held as sustainable for other noticees like the appellants herein. ...

Read More

CESTAT passes Strictures against Advocate for making frivolous arguments

Clarion Power Corporation Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)

This as a fit care where the Bench may recommend to Tamilnadu Bar Council to take appropriate action against him. But, by keeping a lenient view in mind, we adjourn the case at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees on thousand only) which will deposited by the counsel toward Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three days from today. On the nex...

Read More

Erection / Installation work supervision by Consulting Engineer is taxable service

Super Sales Agencies Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Coimbatore (CESTAT Chennai)

Appellant was supervisor to provide technical assistance for the purpose of erection and installation. Therefore Revenue is correct in its approach to bring the service provided by the appellant as Consulting Engineer, providing consultancy for the said service....

Read More

Service Tax Excess payment can be adjusted in Subsequent months

M/s. Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU (CESTAT Chennai)

Appellant is the centrally registered taxpayer and the error committed could not be detected immediately and it took almost a month to recognise the excess payment made in the month of May, 2011 and hence it was adjusted against the tax liabilities for the month of July, 2011...

Read More

Exports to SEZ should be included for Refund of Service Tax

M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs CCE & ST (LTU), Chennai (CESTAT Chennai)

It was held that when the revenue proceeded to include the value of SEZ exports in computing the total turnover, the same should also have been included in computing export turnover and accordingly the value of export turnover should be equal to the total turnover and the value of SEZ exports should be included in the export turnover (num...

Read More

SEZ developer can claim ST refund on Input services by CA, CS etc

AMRL Hitech City Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Chennai)

The Appellant is registered as Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ) as a developer of AMRL Hi-Tech City. The Appellant claimed the refund of credit paid on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“CC Rules”) read with Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated July 01, 2013....

Read More

Entire Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed for part wrong availment

SIFY Technologies Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, LTU Chennai (CESTAT Chennai)

It is held that merely because assessee has not reverse credit attributable to provision of exempted services would not disentitle it to claim credit which is otherwise available in respect of input services used in provision of taxable services....

Read More

Composition of mixture important for classifying fertiliser-CESTAT

M/s. Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, Tiruchirapalli (CESTAT Chennai)

for the purpose of classification of fertilisers, it is important to see where the products consists of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium as laid down in the explanatory notes, it should be classified as fertilizers....

Read More

Physical brand embossing not must, to be called as branded goods

M/s. Titan Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III (CESTAT Chennai)

It was held that a name or writing need not be a brand name or trade name in a sense it is normally understood. Even ordinary mark or letter is sufficient to indicate a connection between the product and the company. ...

Read More

Captively consumed goods partly cleared to DTA to be valued u/s 4

Eastman Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Madura (CESTAT Chennai)

In case of captive consumption, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 and if same goods are partly sold by the assessee then such goods should be assessed on the basis of transaction value and duty to be determined as per Section 4 for each removal....

Read More
Page 1 of 812345...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,603)
Company Law (3,641)
Custom Duty (6,789)
DGFT (3,557)
Excise Duty (4,090)
Fema / RBI (3,355)
Finance (3,592)
Income Tax (26,352)
SEBI (2,799)
Service Tax (3,307)