The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and beverages which are sold under the brand ‘Nimbooz’ from March 2009 onwards. The issue under consideration is classification of ‘Nimbooz’.
Modfurn Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Green Signals Use of CA Certificate, Validating The Non-Transfer of tax liability to another, as Evidence It has been ruled that the Certificate of Chartered Accountant that categorically declares that the tax liability has not been turned over to another can […]
Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Appellants are with the suppliers of fly ash. It is seen that appellants are installing PDFACS systems in the factories of thermal plants and contract for maintenance providing man power etc. is given to the respective suppliers. These suppliers do maintain such systems and transport […]
M/s. Novotron Broadband (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & ST (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is with regard to demand of differential service tax on the value obtained is including value of the materials used in rendering Repairs and Maintenance Service. In M/s. Safety Retreading Co. (P) Ltd., (supra) the said issue has been decided, […]
CESTAT Chennai has allowed refund of excess amount paid by mistake as pre-deposit by the assessee. It observed that when the legislature made it clear what is to be collected as pre-deposit, in the absence of any finding about non-satisfaction of conditions as to pre-deposit, the department cannot retain such excess amount remitted by mistake.
Shri. Haji Sumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that the transaction value adopted by the importer cannot be rejected merely based on export declarations received from Turkish Customs, public ledger and Commodity Trade Statistics Data (Comtrade). Shri. Haji Sumar, who is one of the partners of M/s. Diamond Traders, has […]
CESTAT Chennai has held that late fee imposed on the appellant for delay in filing of Bill of Entry was not proper, since the delay had occurred only because the original importer had failed to clear the goods.
The issue under consideration is whether the service tax under RCM will be levied on deputed employees working under control, direction and supervision of overseas companies?
M/s. O.M.S. Sivajothi Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an option in lieu of confiscation and hence, both (confiscation and redemption fine) cannot run simultaneously. It observed that when the order on confiscation remained unchallenged, and when even […]
M/S. Lucas TVS Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Observing that as per definition of ‘input services’ the restriction to avail credit up to the place of removal was applicable only for outward transportation of goods, CESTAT Chennai has allowed Cenvat credit of tax paid on renting of crates used in […]
