CESTAT held that when Tribunal given a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to appellant, Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated demand after granting benefit.
Integral Coach Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of railway coaches and are registered with the Central Excise Department. On specific intelligence that they were clearing railway coaches without payment of duty, the officers of the Preventive Unit […]
The issue is whether the respondent is eligible to avail credit on input services on freight charges and CHA services availed upto the port for export of goods.
CESTAT held that activity of treatment of effluent water is exempt from Service Tax under Notification No. 08/2017-S.T. dated 20.02.2017
CESTAT Chennai held that as transfer of technical knowhow not a condition for sale of capital goods, hence, technical knowhow fee not to be included in the assessable value of imported goods.
ITC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Whether the IDSC/ICNC debit note raised by Bhadrachalam Unit have to be considered as a component of cost of raw materials of the appellant and Whether the unabsorbed overheads due to idle capacity have to be included in the cost of production? n the case of […]
CESTAT Chennai held that no documents are placed on record establishing that services are rendered in India, accordingly, service tax liability under management, maintenance or repair service unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that appeal by department dismissed as time-barred as review order as required u/s 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 assumed to have been passed beyond 3 months as no evidence produced proving delay in receiving review order.
Issue is as to whether service tax can be demanded on reimbursable expenses. CESTAT held that demand cannot sustain & requires to be set aside
CESTAT Chennai held that as department failed to provide any evidence to establish the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the reviewing cell. Hence delay in filing of appeal by department dismissed as time-barred.
