The appellant or its employee has not conducted any due diligence measures. They claimed to have obtained KYC documents through email but have failed to produce them either before the Inquiry officer or at any stage. The irresistible conclusion can only be that they have no such documents and also no idea of who the exporter was and simply filed a Shipping Bill heavily over-invoicing the goods. Held that revocation of customer broker licence due to non-production of KYC of the exporters is sustainable in law.
Where VAT had been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax could be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
M/s. ACC Limited (Unit: Madukkarai Cement Works) Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is clear that the litigation with regard to the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2009 has continued till 27.02.2018 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore has set aside the demand, interest and penalties confirmed in the […]
As per section 114AA, penalty can be levied only when a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document, which is false or incorrect.
Section 142 (3) is the transitional provision for claim of refund after the introduction of GST Act, 2017. It says that refund claims of any amount paid under the erstwhile law have to be disposed according to the provisions of the erstwhile law and the amount has to be paid in cash. The appellants have paid the tax under the erstwhile law. In the present case, the claim is only for refund and not proceedings for assessment or adjudication.
Brief issue involved in the matter is that whether the credit on inputs and capital goods / services used in fabrication, erection, installation of towers and shelters is admissible or not. Further, issue also involves that whether extended period can be invoked in the present matter.
The appellant received patterns from their customers to whom they supply the casting manufactured using the patterns. In one of the order the total cost of pattern was amortized and accordingly the appellant did not took into consideration the value of pattern while clearing the additional order.
CESTAT held that sales promotion and marketing being essential character of the bundle of services have to be classified under ‘Business Auxiliary Service’.
Aditya Chemicals Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Production of original VAT or Sales Tax Challans not required for grant of SAD refund unless any deficiency memo is issued The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (the CESTAT Chennai) in the case of M/s Aditya Chemicals v. Commissioner of Customs [Customs Appeal […]
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) Service Tax refund: Certificate of existing Statutory Auditor cannot be denied for earlier period The second issue is that the auditor’s certificate is not signed by the statutory auditor who was engaged during the period when the refund is […]
