1981 Circular of the Board clarifies that losses of up to 1% can be allowed without detailed scrutiny and loss above 1% can be condoned after scrutiny, we find no reason to not condone losses in these cases as claimed.
Held that refund u/s 27 against duty paid on self-assessment basis not admissible unless the self-assessment is modified through an appeal.
Whether HR Sheets/ Coils & welding electrodes which are used for lining plant & in its maintenance qualify as inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules
CESTAT set aside demand of service tax on refundable security deposit on the grounds that security deposit is refundable deposit and it cannot be included in the value of taxable service.
In the present case, section 35F of the Excise Act, as it stood prior to 06.08.2014, provides for payment of interest only if the pre-deposit amount is not refunded within a period three months from the date of communication of the order to adjudicating authority.
Berry Alloys Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) We find that the main ground for denying the credit as discussed in the impugned order is that the Appellant failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence that the impugned items were used in fabrication of capital goods/accessories/parts/components. The Chartered Engineer’s Certificate though produced before both […]
Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Issue of leviability of Service tax on penalty, liquidated damages, compensation, forfeiture amounts, cancellation charges etc. stands settled by various pronouncements wherein it has consistently been held that the said amounts recovered as charges for breach or non-compliance of contractual terms […]
Linkwell Telesystems Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The first question to be answered in this case is if some credit has been taken and thereafter reversed as has been done by the Appellant in this case with respect to part of the credit, does it amount to not taking a credit […]
Nosch Labs Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad) Section 113 of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of export goods i.e., goods attempted to be exported. It does not provide for confiscation of goods which have already been exported. The term ‘export goods’ is defined in Section 2(19) of the Customs Act as […]
Global Adsorbents (P) Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise It is undisputed that the appellant is selling activated carbon in bags with its own name pre-printed on them. Thus, if the appellant is selling the goods with its own name on the packets, it is labeling the product. The next question is whether it is […]
