Appellants are not the manufacturer of Aluminium scrap and they have only imported the scrap for manufacture of Aluminium ingots.
CESTAT Chennai held that relevant date of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in case of export of service is the date of realization of the foreign exchange.
CESTAT Chennai held that handling of export cargo is excluded from the purview of service tax. The same is not exempted service. In nut-shell, any activity on which no service tax is payable doesn’t make such activity an exempted service.
CESTAT Chennai held that net quantity after adjusting the gain and loss has to be taken for demand of duty in case of petroleum products.
CESTAT Chennai held that service receiver (appellant) not liable to pay service tax invoking provisions of section 66A of the Finance Act under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) as inspection service is performed in India.
CESTAT held that no Service Tax could be levied on construction of residential complexes prior to 01.07.2010 even when service is rendered either as service simpliciter or as a works contract.
Waste and scrap are emerging as by-products during the course of manufacture of other products and therefore are not exigible to excise duty.
Noticee has a right to get copies of documents. Department has to record reasons for denying request for cross examination. Cross examination cannot be denied stating that no purpose will be achieved.
Original authority confirmed a higher amount on grounds which are not alleged in SCN and has thus traversed beyond SCN is not without substance
Ruchi Soya Industries Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Ld. Counsel Shri Vishal Sundar submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated in respect of the appellant under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (NCLT) dt. 08.12.2017 […]
