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 […]
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 […]
