Held that the ceiling of 20% under Rule 6(3)(c) is not applicable to capital goods and 17 input services specified under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT allowed Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and financing company jointly to enjoy the benefit of no duty imports when imported goods used by EOU.
CESTAT overturned order that required payment of Service Tax on expenses incurred for spares and materials used in provision of complimentary services during warranty period.
Denial of CENVAT credit for non-registration of premises is not justified as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further held that, when conditions like payment of tax and receipt of service are satisfied, in such case credit cannot be denied on the basis that the credit was availed few days before the payment of tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation rightly invoked as non-payment of Service Tax has been detected and investigated by the Anti-evasion Unit of the Commissionerate.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Dimension Data India Limited (CESTAT Chennai) It is brought out that an amount of Rs.7,23,072/- was rejected by the original authority on the ground that Bill of Entry in regard to RSP based assessed goods has to be reassessed and refund claim has to be filed for the CVD paid by […]
CPC (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, were heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. Brief facts are that the appellants hold Central Excise registration as well as Service Tax registration. During the scrutiny of CENVAT documents, it […]
CESTAT Chennai held that there is no Service Tax liability as and when the construction of flat is for the personal use of the service recipient.
CESTAT Chennai held that any other amount, other than gross amount charged for providing taxable service, which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’.
Fact of suppression, etc., has not been established by the Revenue to justify invoking the extended period of limitation
