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 […]
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (CESTAT Hyderabad) Facts- The assessee imported various equipment from Reliance Infra Projects and Zhejiang and cleared them by filing 36 Bills of Entry (BOE) with the Customs at Kakinada. BOE filed in the Customs EDI system are either marked to an officer for assessment or […]
Nava Bharat Ventures Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Rule 15 (Confiscation and penalty) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides for imposition of penalty if CENVAT credit has been wrongly availed which allegation must be made in the show cause notice with a proposal to recover such wrongly availed […]
Inox Leisure Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Appellant exhibits/ screens the movies provided by the distributor – consideration is paid by the appellant to the distributor based on the agreed percentage – department demanded service tax considering the same as BSS – Held no service tax can be levied on the appellant […]
Synthokem Labs Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The only issue remains now is as to whether the case in hand was merely a case of wrong apportionment of credit between the appellants both units, a bonafide clerical error or it was a case of intentional malafide intention to evade payment of […]
Service tax had to be levied only for consideration received for service, therefore, the entire demand of service tax on reimbursable expenses collected from clients for the period post 1.5.2006 was set aside. However, to the extent assessee had collected any amount representing service tax on such expenses and interest thereon from clients, the same need to be deposited with the Government in terms of Section 73A of the Finance Act.
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is submitted on behalf of appellant that appellant is an SEZ Unit. The chief contention of the Department for the part-rejection of the refund claim relates to service tax amount paid by the appellant on ocean freight services which is not included/covered under the […]
Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The department wants to deny benefit of the CENVAT credit on the ground that ‘services related to setting up of a factory’ which were specifically included prior to 1.4.2011 were no longer specifically included post 1.4.2011. We find that the definition of ‘input […]
Get insights on Cenvat credit availability for workmen compensation insurance policy. Explore the CESTAT Hyderabad order and legal perspectives on the matter.
