CESTAT Chennai held that an assessee cannot avail of the options under Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 simultaneously. Once the option is availed, other option cannot be chosen simultaneously.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of interest under section 61(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable as SCN is time barred.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of Cenvat credit on input services such as Car hire charges, Insurance charges, Travel expenses and Staff welfare expenses is not legally maintainable in terms of Rule 2 (1) of CCR, 2004.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund is not hit by unjust enrichment as chartered accountant certificate duly furnished satisfying that the duty has not been passed on.
CESTAT Chennai held that as right to use the software was granted after 16/05/2008 the same is leviable to service tax under Information Technology Software Service.
HC Held that, FC collected by banks or NBFC on premature termination of loans cannot be subject to service tax under Banking & Other Financial Services
CESTAT Chennai held that Revenue cannot take a different stand when the Revenue has accepted the principles laid down in a previous case. Accordingly, demand cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that Custom House Agent (CHA) cannot be expected to examine and ensure the nature of the goods in the consignment. Accordingly, penalty u-s 114 of the Customs Act cannot be levied on CHA alleging that they didn’t ensure correct classification of the goods.
Jansons Textile Processors Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Salem (CESTAT Chennai) The facts of the matter are that appellants are manufacturers of cotton textile fabrics and made ups. They were clearing some of the final products on payment of duty as per Notification No.29/2004-CE and claimed exemption under notification No.30/2004-CE on other products. […]
Komatsu India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) It is not the case of the Revenue that what the appellant claimed was the refund of the duty paid and there is also no dispute that the appellant claimed only the security deposit made. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. […]
