Architect service, telephone expenses were input services and therefore Service Tax paid on said services is eligible as CENVAT Credit
CESTAT Mumbai held that tariff items within heading 8523 don’t offer scope for inclusion of ‘software’ of any type in the residual entry ‘others’ owing to the exhaustive enumeration in description in that heading.
Rishad Shipping And Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT find that in para 29 of the Order-in-Original, the original authority has held that the appellant were liable for penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subsequently ordered imposition of penalty of 2.0 lakhs under Section 114(i) […]
CESTAT Mumbai remands customs appeal on service date ambiguity. Order-in-Original service method not specified. Time-bar decision reconsidered.
CESTAT Mumbai held that non-reflection of Cenvat Credit in ST-3 return cannot be ground to deny refund of unutilized cenvat credit.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as per rule 7B(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the claimant is required to submit a revised return. Accordingly, as the claimant failed to furnish the same refund is not admissible.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim was rejected on sole ground of non-production of original documents. However, as original documents are misplaced, as per provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, attested copies of invoices should be considered as proof of production of document.
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case, it is an undisputed facts that the automotive dealers had paid service tax on the nature of services described in the invoices issued to the appellant; that payment of service tax by such dealers have been accepted […]
Since, the show cause notice was issued by Revenue, burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that the hiring of halls and hotel rooms had no nexus with the output services. Whereas the finding as recorded by both the original and appellate authorities did not indicate that the burden of proof is discharged by Revenue.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim of service tax paid on input services which are wholly consumed within SEZ cannot be denied.
