CESTAT Chennai held that any refund claim is not maintainable in absence of any challenge to the assessment order as the refund authority cannot assume the role of an adjudicating / assessing authority.
Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of VLCC Health Care Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The issue revolved around whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax at the revised rate of 12.24% for the period prior to 18.04.2006. The order provides an analysis of relevant provisions and concludes that the demand cannot sustain, setting it aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund under section 11B duly available as there can be no levy of service tax on the activity of transportation of gas up to delivery point at customer’s premises as it pertains to self-service.
CESTAT Chennai held that the provisions made in the books of account by the appellant as per the GAAP towards sharing the expenditure on account of receipt of sponsorship services cannot be subjected to tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty demand on semi-finished goods and finished goods not sustainable as goods are exported on payment of duty under section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that when Form-H has been produced to establish that the goods have been exported the value of such clearances would not be included in the aggregate value so as to deny the SSI exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong availment of abatement via ST-3 returns doesn’t amount to mis-declaration. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for normal period sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty burden is shifted to the appellant unit only because facility under rule 12BB is opted. Also, penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unwarranted when duty liability is paid with interest.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Squid Liver Powder’ being a high-quality feed ingredient for aqua feed and all type diet for animals, the product which is not for exclusive use for fish, prawn etc. has been correctly classified under CTH 23099090.
