The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that only photocopies of the Bills of Entry, TR6 challans and sales invoices were produced by the appellant. Thus, for want of production of original documents, refund claim was rejected, which was later upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.
The issue involved in both these appeals being the same were heard together and disposed by this common order. The parties hereinafter referred to as assessee and department for the sake of convenience.
M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (CESTAT Chennai) Regarding the tax liability on the consideration received due to termination of the arrangement, we note that no identifiable service can be attributed for such consideration. It is rather a termination of arrangement which itself the original authority held as a service. We note that by […]
M/s. Siemens Ltd Vs. CCE & ST (CESTAT Chennai) Lower authorities have inter-mixed the embedded software with the customized software supplied latter for monitoring and data retrieval from the device. From the discussions above, it is clear that a devise should suffer Central Excise duty along with essential operating software which is part and parcel […]
The Show Cause Notice has to be viewed in its entirety and cannot be vivisected as may be convenient for the Revenue. Thus, if a show cause notice is found as not valid or issued without jurisdiction in respect of the main protagonist, the very same SCN cannot be held as sustainable for other noticees like the appellants herein.
Appellant was supervisor to provide technical assistance for the purpose of erection and installation. Therefore Revenue is correct in its approach to bring the service provided by the appellant as Consulting Engineer, providing consultancy for the said service.
This as a fit care where the Bench may recommend to Tamilnadu Bar Council to take appropriate action against him. But, by keeping a lenient view in mind, we adjourn the case at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees on thousand only) which will deposited by the counsel toward Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three days from today. On the next date of hearing, proof of deposit shall be submitted.
Appellant is the centrally registered taxpayer and the error committed could not be detected immediately and it took almost a month to recognise the excess payment made in the month of May, 2011 and hence it was adjusted against the tax liabilities for the month of July, 2011
It was held that when the revenue proceeded to include the value of SEZ exports in computing the total turnover, the same should also have been included in computing export turnover and accordingly the value of export turnover should be equal to the total turnover and the value of SEZ exports should be included in the export turnover (numerator).
The Appellant is registered as Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ) as a developer of AMRL Hi-Tech City. The Appellant claimed the refund of credit paid on various input services under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (“CC Rules”) read with Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated July 01, 2013.
