The issue under consideration is whether department cannot force upon the assessee to reverse credit under Rule 6(3)(i) merely for the reason that no intimation under Rule 6 of CCR?
Lancor Holdings Limited Vs The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute as to the eligibility or otherwise for refund except the claim being rejected as barred by limitation. There is also no dispute that both the service provider and the service recipient having merged into a single entity, there […]
The issue under consideration is regarding rejection of claim for refund of the service tax under Section 11B.
The issue under consideration is whether the transfer of goods is by way of hiring the charter vessel is taxable under Service Tax as declared service?
Foreclosure charges collected by the banks and non banking financial companies on premature termination of loans are not leviable to service tax under ‘banking and other financial services’ as defined under section 65 (12) of the Finance Act
CESTAT directs Customs Authorities to return confiscated gold to Foreign National- lack of evidence and flimsy investigation by the authorities. Held that in the absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled.
High Court of Judicature at Madras has held that the refund of input Cenvat credit cannot be denied just because premises was unregistered, in the case of Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Vs. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities, in CMA No. 57 of 2018 dated 18.01.2018. Therefore, the denial of refund for the reasons of a premises being unregistered cannot sustain and the same is set aside.
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Chennai) Revenue is of the opinion that only if the loan is in the form of Indian rupee and interest is earned on that, then alone under the provisions of Valuation Rules or Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 interest is not to be […]
The facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the business as freight forwarders and provide worldwide containerised and conventional cargo transportation and logistics services. During audit of accounts, it was noticed that besides collecting various charges, such as documentation charges, examination charges, freight charges, appellants also collected amount towards purchasing of cargo space from shipping lines.
The appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry No. 6280158 dated 07.05.2018 for the clearance of ‘Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras’ and since the goods were of Korean origin, the appellant, under the self-assessment scheme, assessed the same at ‘Nil’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) in terms of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. (Sl. No. 833) dated 31. 12.2009
