CESTAT Kolkata

Compensation/ liquidated damage cannot be treated as service to levy Service Tax

Amit Metaliks Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)

Show Cause Notice mentions the leviablity of Service tax on the amount received towards the compensation for non supply of the agreed quantity of manganese ore under Section 64E(e) of Finance Act which is even otherwise is purely the transaction sale of the iron ore to the Appellant by M/s Amit Mines. Thus, the compensation amount is towa...

Read More

Value of Goods obtained on job-work cannot be included into turnover to calculate SSI Limit

Hitachi K. K. Manufacturing Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

Value of goods obtained on job-work basis cannot be included into turnover of appellants. By excluding this value items manufactured by appellants comes below limit prescribed for S.S.I. Exemption....

Read More

Section 35F do not bar Pre-Deposit out of CENVAT Credit Account

M/s.Manaksia Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia (CESTAT Kolkata)

In view of the above observations, the view taken by the First Appellate Authority, that deposit under Section 35F (i) cannot be made from CENVAT Credit Account, is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the CENVAT Credit is permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, appeal filed ...

Read More

Canteen, House keeping & cleaning service- CENVAT credit allowed

M/S. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedur (Cestat Kolkata)

CENVAT Credit on Canteen Services and House Keeping/Cleaning Services availed in office building are admissible to Assessee when same was situated within licensed factory premises of Assessee....

Read More

Every audit objection doesn’t lead to invocation of extended period and levy of penalty

LANDIS + GYR LTD. V. Commissioner of Central Excise (Kolkata – CESTAT)

The Hon’ble CESTAT held that every shortcoming noticed during Audit cannot be held as due to mala fide intention on part of Assessee so as to invoke extended period of limitation and levy the penalty. ...

Read More

Intent to evade payment duty is a sina qua non for invoking penal provision u/s. 11AC

M/s. Landis + Gyr Ltd. Vs CCE-KOL-V (CESTAT Kolkata)

Undisputedly the appellant had received input services viz. GTA and Business Auxiliary Service and used the same in or in relation to the manufacture and trading of Electric Meters. It is also not in dispute that credit of Rs. 3,41,397/- availed by the appellant on the said input services were not exclusively used in or in relation to the...

Read More

Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules not applicable to credit availed on input services

Seven Star Steels Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)

Appellants had procured iron ores during the period April 2007 to March, 2009, which were used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, sponge iron. In bringing the said iron ores, which were used as input, the appellants had paid service tax on GTA services. Consequently, they had availed cenvat credit on the amount of service ...

Read More

Abatement available on GTA service even if consignment note not mentions about non-availment of credit

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur (CESTAT Kolkatta)

In absence of any particular format prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is un-sustainable in law. In these circumstances the declarations filed by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or ...

Read More

Principle of doctrine of unjust enrichment not applies to refund of ‘deposit of duty’

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VII Vs Krypton Industries (CESTAT Kolkata)

Undisputedly the respondent deposited the amount at the investigation stage and the proceeding initiated against them were dropped by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 9-2-2011. It is a case of refund of deposit of duty and not a refund of duty therefore the principle of unjust enrichment which is applicable to refund of dut...

Read More

Cenvat credit cannot be denied on ground that supplier had paid excess duty

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III Vs Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. (CESTAT Kolkata)

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P.) Ltd. v. CCE&C 2007 (218) ELT 488 has held that the issue of classification of the input/raw materials supplied by the input supplier cannot be questioned in the hands of input receiver while allowing Modvat/Cenvat credit....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,375)
Company Law (5,170)
Custom Duty (7,494)
DGFT (4,051)
Excise Duty (4,279)
Fema / RBI (3,902)
Finance (4,053)
Income Tax (31,258)
SEBI (3,249)
Service Tax (3,483)