Popular Carbonic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) (i) The issue is to whether the process of compressing carbondioxide and subsequent filling in cylinder amounts to manufacture in terms of Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 of the Tariff Act has been settled in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal in […]
V.V. Minerals [100% EOU] Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) Unless there Is any provision to the contrary, the charging sections of the tax laws apply to illegal acts as they apply to legal acts and therefore tax is leviable notwithstanding that action for the illegal actions may be taken under some other […]
CESTAT held that, no service tax is to be imposed on liquidated damages recovered for not adhering to time limits mentioned in the contract as the same would not be covered in ‘Declared Services’ mentioned under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Chennai) Section 65B(44) defines service to mean any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration and includes a declared service. One of the declared services contemplated under section 66E is a service contemplated under clause (e) which service is agreeing to the […]
Appellant availed credit on the Service tax paid and applied for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CENVAT Credit Rules) for the period July, 2013 to September, 2013.
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Interest earned on gold loans is taxable and does not fall within negative list as Section 66D(n) of the Act excludes interest earned only on monetary Loans and advances, but not to lending of Gold. Revenue is of the opinion that only if […]
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is with regard to the re-credit availed by the appellants on 29.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.20,83,773/-. As explained by the learned counsel for the appellants, the said re-credit is not adjustment of the excess reversal of proportionate credit in terms of Rule […]
The second allegation is that appellants have violated Regulation 5(n), by allowing unauthorised persons to enter into the area. Though, it is stated in the show-cause notice that the appellants have allowed unauthorised persons to access the premises, there is no evidence to support the same. The details of such unauthorised persons seen in the premises are not furnished by department. The allegation without support of any evidence cannot sustain.”
CESTAT had deleted the penalty imposed by the Customs Department and held that no penalty could be levied under section 117 if there was no willful intention / wrongful mind for violating the law and such violation occurred was only due to inadvertent omission / system error.
Explore Angallamman Knit Fabrics vs Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT Chennai sets aside confiscation of export goods and penalties. Full judgment here.
