No limitation is applicable for refund in the facts and circumstances of the present case, due to the amount lying with the Revenue having the nature of revenue deposit.
Section 11 – Power of adjustment cannot be exercised for demand of tax/interest/penalty which is sub judice by Central Excise officers.
Merely because a note was given in the balance sheet of the appellant company that the service recipient’s company is an Associates Company of the appellant does not alter the legal status of independent entity of both the companies.
Rakesh Kumar Tibra Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) In view of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 3.5.2019, in the case of Lucky Tobacco Co. Ltd. and Others, arising from the same impugned order-in-original, we find that the cause of action against these appellants also does not survive. In this view of […]
RMA & Associates Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The appellant was engaged in providing chartered accountant services. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding the non-payment of service tax on the amount representing reimbursement of expenses like conveyance, travelling and mobile expenses. The issue, in respect of reimbursable expenses has been […]
The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellant had provided cargo handling service for the period 01.04.2007 to 30.05.2007 and mining service for the period 01.06.2007.
Punjab National Bank Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that there is no controversy regarding the quantum of amount refundable. Further, there is no allegation nor any finding by the Court below with regard to unjust enrichment. Further, in the facts and circumstances, I find that there is […]
Ericsson India Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT held that amount paid for the same duty but twice, one of the payment has to be refunded. Otherwise also in terms of section 17 of Limitation Act, whenever there is an application for a relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of […]
Tasleem Ahmed Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In this case appellant has clearly abused the process and has filed this appeal against the order dated June 30, 2017, which order was earlier assailed by the appellant by filing Excise Appeal no. 50087 of 2018 and this appeal was dismissed […]
Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner (Appeal) (CESTAT Delhi) The fact that the corporate social responsibility is a legal responsibility does not make it an output service. The appellant not entitled to Cenvat Credit on the services used for corporate social responsibility. Facts- The appellant is a non-banking finance corporation engaged in financing projects and […]
