CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant has undertaken beneficiation process to make sand into processed/upgraded Ilmenite. Hence, export duty at rate of 5% FOB payable on such Ilmenite which is upgraded (beneficiated Ilmenite) processed.
CESTAT held that if a service tax refund request coincides with a period in which a demand has been established, taxpayer will only be eligible for a refund if demand is overturned.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong supply made by the supplier merely supported by e-mails, the authenticity of which were never proved before the Adjudicating Authority, is unacceptable.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. need to be filed within a period of one year from the date of payment of SAD.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty demand unsustainable as invoices for purchase of raw materials and invoices for clearances of finished products indicate that the appellant is an independent manufacturer.
Held that the ceiling of 20% under Rule 6(3)(c) is not applicable to capital goods and 17 input services specified under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT allowed Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and financing company jointly to enjoy the benefit of no duty imports when imported goods used by EOU.
CESTAT overturned order that required payment of Service Tax on expenses incurred for spares and materials used in provision of complimentary services during warranty period.
Denial of CENVAT credit for non-registration of premises is not justified as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further held that, when conditions like payment of tax and receipt of service are satisfied, in such case credit cannot be denied on the basis that the credit was availed few days before the payment of tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation rightly invoked as non-payment of Service Tax has been detected and investigated by the Anti-evasion Unit of the Commissionerate.
