Held that allegation of clandestine removal only on the basis of incriminating statements, which were retracted, in absence of corroborative evidence is unsustainable.
Held that if proceedings do not culminate within a reasonable period of time then they stand vitiated. The delay of over a decade truly violates the Appellant’s right to natural justice and vitiates the entire proceeding.
Held that work of mediator/ arbitrator in resolving the dispute between the parties is not management consultancy service. Accordingly, not liable to service tax under management consultancy service u/s 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994
CESTAT Held that services relating to modernization, renovation or repairs of factory is input service, accordingly cenvat credit available.
Appellant entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on input. Question whether input arisen out of a process of manufacture is irrelevant.
CESTAT held that rejection of refund claimed by exporter on flimsy grounds would defeat the purpose of rebate scheme and traps the exporters under unnecessary litigations.
The appellant paid the duty with interest even prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice. If that is so, the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at all and consequently the question of payment of penalty would not arise at all.
Iron & steel items & cement used for erection of foundation & support structures come within the ambit of definition of input so long as it satisfies user test.
Jindal Steel & Power Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) It is undisputed that the compensation was received by the Appellant. Coal blocks allocated to the Appellant as well as to several others were cancelled as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, they were allotted to new companies. […]
Eskay Kaycee Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT find that the Appellant satisfied the essential requirements for CENVAT credit. Notwithstanding excisability of the input, the supplier of the input paid duty thereon and issued a valid invoice to the Appellant. The input so received in the Appellant’s factory was […]
