CESTAT Chennai held that penalty of only 25% and not 100% leviable as duty along with interest and 25% penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of Order-in-Original.
Minvesta Infotech Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is argued by the learned consultant that prior to introduction of GST, appellant would have been able to take re credit of the said amount when refund claims are denied as time-barred. After the introduction of GST, the appellant is not able […]
CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Chartered Accountant services for mere mention of Individual name after company name and Mere allegation in SCN cannot be a ground to deny Credit on bank charges
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claims rejected as time-barred considering the date of re-submission of refund claim as the date of filing of refund claim and ignoring the date on which the initial/ original refund claim was filed is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Chennai held that the respondent is not contesting the duty demand and penalty and the entire duty and penalty is also paid by the respondent. Then, remanding the matter of re-examining whether the SCN issuing authority is proper or not is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.
RPP Infra Projects Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT held that department has to refrain from issuing Show Cause Notice if the appellant pays up the service tax along with interest as ascertained by himself or by the officers. In the present case, the appellant has paid up the service tax […]
Aurolab Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is whether the refund claim is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. Undisputedly, the appellant has mentioned the duty element in the invoices issued to the buyers. The presumption envisaged in section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 then applies and the […]
It is not in dispute that the said electricity is supplied to the factory of the respondent and the same is used for manufacturing activity. Merely because the wind generation plant is situated far away from the manufacturing activity, credit cannot be denied.
CESTAT Chennai held that adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of red sander but refrained from confiscation of container u/s 119 and accordingly penalty u/s 114 on the appellant was not imposed. Matter remanded to re-look into the non-imposition of penalty.
CESTAT Chennai held that levy of excise on bagasse and press mud was under litigation, hence the amount of credit reversed under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been reversed under protest and refund claim of such reversal done under protest is not hit by time-bar.
