CESTAT find that service tax was not leviable on the services provided by the appellants, which was paid by mistake by the appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund. Limitation u/s 11B will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit.
Ozone Plant Design Service Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, upon filing of the refund claims, only a deficiency memo was issued to the appellant requiring the appellant to appear on a particular date and produce the required documents indicated in the memo to substantiate the claim. What […]
CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the appeal filed for refund claim by the assessee. Held that, the refund claim of input services under GST cannot be denied solely on technical reasons.
A.V. Agro Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) It is held that vide the impugned application, the appellant is trying to bring a new case despite that his grievances have been settled not once but on several other occasions where he himself has admitted him to have same facts as […]
Harjas Associates Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) It is not the case of the department that the appellant though has collected the service tax but not paid the same to the government. The demand confirmed in the impugned order pertains to GTA services provided by the appellant […]
Banswara Syntex Ltd. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax,(CESTAT Delhi) The appellant applied or refund of the pre-deposit amount of Rs.75,63,721/-, which was allowed vide order-in-original dated 3.9.2015. However, refund of Rs.33,69,417/- was allowed in cash and balance amount of Rs.41,94,304/- allowed by way of cenvat credit. Order of Commissioner (Appeals)/(Audit) dated 9.3.2018 is […]
DI Gold Designer Jewellery Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, when apparently, the show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods seized under Section 110 of Customs Act was issued after one year from the date of seizure. The show cause notice itself gets hit by limitation as the show cause notice […]
CESTAT Delhi grants refund to Amzole India Pvt. Ltd. on service tax. Advocate Anand Bhattacharya highlights key ruling. Legal insights on service tax dispute.
Lightspeed India Partners Advisors LLP Vs Commissioner Central Tax (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Since the GST regime has done away with the ST 3 return, there remain no provision in GST system to reflect the refund claim in the CENVAT credit balance. The only option was to show its reversal in the Books of accounts. Such […]
As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
