CESTAT Chennai’s landmark order: Accumulated CENVAT credit from an EOU unit can be transferred to a DTA unit upon exiting EOU status. Analysis and implications.
Acqueon Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs: CESTAT Chennai allows customs duty refund despite invoice error. Detailed analysis and precedent cited.
Interest was not payable accumulated CENVAT credit lying unutilized as in case of export of services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, assessee was free to take back the credit of not sanctioned / partially sanctioned refunds.
Department did not have a case that assessee had not discharged Service Tax on the agency commission received as a Steamer Agent or CHA.
CESTAT Chennai’s order on Visanthi & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. Analysis of service tax demand for construction services.
CESTAT Chennai held that coverage of activity of Postweld heat treatment/ stress relief heat treatment as within the definition of ‘Technical Testing and Analysis Service’ needs re-consideration as appellant doesn’t issue any report certifying quality of goods.
CESTAT Chennai has quashed penalties in a tax dispute case. Details of the case and the impact of pending constitutional validity challenge discussed.
CESTAT Chennai rules no demand can survive against composite works contract contracts prior to 01.06.2007 in the case of Mertho Constructions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
CESTAT Chennai rules transporters in mines not considered Goods Transport Agency (GTA) without consignment notes, dismissing Service Tax liability for Ramco Cements.
CESTAT Chennai’s ruling in Balmer Lawrie & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise: Central excise duty on metal containers returned as scrap analyzed. No penalty levied.
