M/s. Sail Refractory Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Bonus and penalty are post-sales provisions, therefore excise duty cannot be levied on such payments which are based on performance post-sales / clearance of the goods. Above issue is covered by the judgment in the case of Vishwakarma Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. […]
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Transformer oil, Petroleum jelly and light liquid paraffin and are availing the facility of Cenvat credit on service tax paid on various input services. During the disputed period, they had availed credit of service tax paid on courier services for sending the samples of their products to buyers in foreign countries. The department was of the view that these are export of goods as the courier services is akin to outward transportation of finished goods from factory gate to the customer’s premises and therefore is not eligible for credit
M/s. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry (CESTAT Chennai) The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for credit of the service tax (ST) paid on product liability insurance. The department has denied the same on the ground that it is post-manufacturing activity and […]
The present appeal challenges the OIO No. 104/2011 dated 31.03.2011. The appellant is providing services of „General Insurance business. The dispute covers the period 2004-05 to 2007-08. During the disputed period, the appellants availed Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on repairs and maintenance of the vehicles by the „Authorized Service Stations‟ (ASS in short)
The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No.8/2010 dated 24.02.2010. The demand covered the period 2004-05 to 2006-07. The appellant was engaged in providing Construction Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction service
Coming to the controversy on rebate received from the postal department, it cannot be treated as a commission or an amount received for promoting the postal services. Such incentives are given by the postal authority to encourage use of franking machines, especially where the volumes are above a certain threshold level.
It is the case of the appellant that it did file its monthly ER-1 returns manually, without any delay but the respondent without verifying the same has imposed the penalty only on the ground that the ER-1 return was filed electronically beyond the prescribed time limit.
M/s. Indo Lloyd Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) As regards Brokerage commission of paid for booking of the export cargo, it is seen that the agents of shipping lines normally book the export cargo. The appellants actually get brokerage or commission for getting orders for the export of cargo. […]
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Refined Palm Oil and are registered with the Central Excise Department. Show cause notice was issued alleging that they have cleared fatty acid or soap stock without payment of duty.
Ld. Advocate submits that the amounts collected from the tenants / lessees would only be in the nature of collection of reimbursable expenses and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) will apply.
