CESTAT restore the matter to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a speaking order as per law after granting reasonable opportunities to the appellant and since the matter pertains to an earlier period which has travelled twice before this forum, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a de novo order within a time-frame of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order by the respective Commissionerate.
CESTAT Chennai held that conditions as prescribed under Board’s Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 is duly complied and accordingly conversion from free shipping bills to Advance Authorization shipping bills needs to be allowed.
P. Natesan & Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of service tax as per section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 is available only if the contract is entered prior to 01.03.2015. Here, contract is entered on 19.03.2015 and hence exemption not available. Facts- The appellant […]
CESTAT Chennai held refund claim of service tax paid by mistake eligible as Chartered Accountant certificate stated that the statutory records are examined and the incidence of duty has not been passed on, accordingly doctrine of unjust enrichment doesn’t apply.
The Timberland Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (Appeals) (CESTAT Chennai) In paragraph-7 of the impugned order, the first appellate authority has clearly recorded that the appellant did not submit the Country of Origin Certificate as prescribed, either during the assessment stage or appellate stage. Against this, the learned Consultant would contend that the Bill […]
CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on Accordingly refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
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.
