CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation justified as non-filing of ST-3 returns for such a long period i.e., from March 2006 to March 2010 will make the intent to evade tax obvious.
CESTAT Chennai held that any refund claim is not maintainable in absence of any challenge to the assessment order as the refund authority cannot assume the role of an adjudicating / assessing authority.
Whether it be registration or centralized registration, when there was no mandatory provision in the Rules regarding registration, the Cenvat Credit could not be denied, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which was not existence in law.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of VLCC Health Care Ltd vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The issue revolved around whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax at the revised rate of 12.24% for the period prior to 18.04.2006. The order provides an analysis of relevant provisions and concludes that the demand cannot sustain, setting it aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund under section 11B duly available as there can be no levy of service tax on the activity of transportation of gas up to delivery point at customer’s premises as it pertains to self-service.
CESTAT Chennai held that the provisions made in the books of account by the appellant as per the GAAP towards sharing the expenditure on account of receipt of sponsorship services cannot be subjected to tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty demand on semi-finished goods and finished goods not sustainable as goods are exported on payment of duty under section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Chennai held that when Form-H has been produced to establish that the goods have been exported the value of such clearances would not be included in the aggregate value so as to deny the SSI exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong availment of abatement via ST-3 returns doesn’t amount to mis-declaration. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for normal period sustained.
