Servocraft HR Solutions Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that Show Cause Notice ought not to be issued when the assessee has paid Service Tax along with interest on being pointed out. Accordingly, penalty imposed under section 77 and section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 […]
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as there is no suppression of facts with the intend to evade payment of tax. Accordingly, order dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
The issue to be decided is whether the rejection of the request to transfer the cenvat credit balance to the lessee unit is legal and proper.
Core Minerals Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) Notification No. 17/2009 dated 07.07.2009 only requires the production of documents and it is not in dispute that the appellant had indeed produced the documents (though a few photocopy of some invoices). Thus, we are of the clear view that the appellant has complied with the […]
CESTAT Chennai held that minor deficiency in the processing may not ipso facto make the leather as not fully finished. Accordingly, satisfying the conditions contained in Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009, the same is freely exportable.
Concerned authorities have justified issuance of Show Cause Notice by invoking extended period of limitation, but for a mere allegation that there was suppression. It is very much settled position of law that allegations, howsoever strong, cannot take place of proof.
Operational Energy Group India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Issue whether service tax is required to be discharged on operational charges by the appellant has already been examined and decided in favour of the appellant by this Bench in the appellant’s own case vide Final Order No. 40104/2019 dated […]
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of CBEC Circular F. No. 137/167/2006-CX dated 3.10.2007 vis-à-vis provisions of section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994, relating to conclusion of entire proceedings on payment of service tax along with interest not available, as assessee failed to pay reduced penalty as required.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 not imposable in absence of deliberate intention to evade the payment of service tax.
When the drill ship was located in an area which was outside the territorial purview of the Finance Act, of 1994, service tax could not be demanded on repair and maintenance work carried out in non-designated areas.
