The present appeal has been filled by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.204/GST/DL-Appl-II/17/ vide which the Commissioner (A) has set aside the order of adjudicating authority....

It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f) (iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which has not been done by the appellant...

Ganesh Narayan Sharma Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Delhi) I. The construction works executed by the appellant were rendered under composite contracts which involved both rendering of service as well as supply of goods and hence such contracts are in the nature of works contracts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & [&h...

Appellant’s task was mainly confined to providing of advisory services in respect of investments identified by overseas client and advise it with respect of investment opportunities in the companies, who are engaged in developing the real estate projects....

Air Travel Service : - The said service has been used by the Directors/employees of the appellant for business promotion i.e. for sale and purchase of their goods. Therefore, the said service is directly related to their manufacturing activity. In that circumstances, in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on Air Travel Service...

The crux of the dispute in the present case is whether such subsidy amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellants, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. ...

Vaishno Associates Vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Jaipur (CESTAT Delhi) The activity carried out by the appellant is in the nature of Erection, Commissioning or Installation and for the disputed period i.e. 2008-09 to 2009-10, the activity will also be covered under the category of Works Contract Service (WCS) which was introduced in the statute w...

M/s. Navin Fluorine International Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Delhi) It is clear that show cause proceedings were initiated only on the ground that the amended Cenvat Credit Rules excluded the construction services as eligible input service. The appellant took credit on 30.04.2011 whereas the amendment was carried on 1.4.2011. It is nobody’s c...

Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances, vide which the demand of duty stands confirmed against M/s.Dadu Steel & Power Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 13,77,691/- along with imposition of penalty of identical amount. Further, penalty of Rs.5 lakhs stands imposed upon ...

M/s G.P. Ispat Pvt. Limited Vs CCE&ST ( CESTAT Delhi) We are lead to the conclusion that in the case of the appellant, the demand of Central Excise duty cannot be upheld, since the allegation of clandestine removal has been made only on the basis of alleged shortages noticed during stock verification. In the absence […]...