Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Private Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) During the course of hearing learned consultant for the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by the appellants were in time as enunciated by the larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India […]
Explore the case of ITCO Industries Ltd. vs. GST Commissioner, CESTAT Chennai’s verdict on GST refund denial, advance authorizations, and compliance issues. Get insights into the legal analysis and its implications.
Explore the Customs Classification dispute between E-Factor Adventure Tourism and Commissioner of Customs. Analysis of boat usage, registration, and the crucial CESTAT Chennai decision.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai ruling in AP Enterprises case. Analysis of activities—camp mobilization, construction, wiring—under Survey and Exploration of Mineral services.
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the credit availed by the appellant-bank on the Service Tax paid on the basis of the premium paid to DICGC for insuring deposits is eligible for CENVAT Credit or not. The said issue […]
CESTAT held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture by the job worker is not included in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
No limitation is applicable to claim of Service Tax refund claim filed after GST introduction due to overriding effect of Section 142(8)(b) of CGST Act and claim can be denied only on grounds of unjust enrichment.
Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when the goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’.
It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked.
Corrigendum to an Order in Original can be issued only for correcting typographical errors. A corrigendum cannot be used to cover up the main part or main issue that has to be adjudicated.
