Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant had contended before the authorities below that as per Section 83 (3) of Chapter VII , Section 83 (5) of Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010, Section 94 of the Finance Act, 2004, Section 138 & Section 139 of the Finance Act, 2007 […]
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand of duty in respect of semifinished goods cannot sustain. Accordingly, the duty paid thereon is duly refundable.
CESTAT Chennai held that Saccharomyces Boulardii being yeast is classifiable under chapter 21 and not under CTH 29183090 as Carboxylic acid.
CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that as per explanation to section 65(105)(zzzh) was added on 01/07/2010, builder/ developer/ promoter getting residential complex constructed for his customer and entering into individual agreements will be treated as deemed provider of construction of residential complex service. Accordingly, no liability of service tax will arise prior to 01/07/2010.
CESTAT Chennai held that services rendered to the domestic vendors by procuring orders from foreign companies rendered are classifiable under Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC) and not under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
CESTAT Chennai held that as per circular F. No. B43/1/97-TRU dated 06/06/1997 services provided by a licensed Custom House Agent in very broad way, to include any service provided to a client in relation to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods. Accordingly, whole range of activity is covered under CHA service.
CESTAT Chennai held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that appellant for the first time submitted certificate from the buyer reflecting that price in the supply order is without excise duty and also certificate from Chartered Accountant establishing that incidence of duty has not been passed on. Accordingly, matter remanded for deciding refund on that basis.
CESTAT Chennai held that input service credit when distributed by the Input Services Distributor (ISD), cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR 2004.
