B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant manufactures silos for storage of food grains. Custom made silos based on purchase orders placed by customers. It classified under chapter heading 84379090. Revenue contended it is a “prefabricated building” falling under chapter heading 94060099. Show cause notices were issued and […]
CESTAT held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
Parts in issue herein have been used for smooth and efficient functioning of machinery which has been used for manufacturing Sugar and Molasses and therefore there is no reason not to allow Cenvat credit
CESTAT Mumbai held that notification no. 27/2012/CE (NT) dated 18th June 2012 for operationalizing of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 include debiting of the claim amount before submission of application for the same. Refund rejected for failure to furnish proof of the availability of credit till the date of write off.
CESTAT Mumbai held that order passed without considering evidence relating to availment of depreciation under the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed.
Since none of the orders of the authorities below was at any discussion or finding regarding mensrea or unlawful gain to the appellant or attributing any knowledge on his part, therefore, the orders denying the duty exemption benefit and confirmed the differential duty of Rs.26,12,902/- with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.26,12,902/- along with interest under Section 114A was merely proceed on basis of speculations which was not justified.
Circular dated 29.4.2011 issued by the Government clarified that the credit in respect of rent a cab service would be available in case the provision of the service was completed before 1.4.2011.
CESTAT Mumbai held that limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 not applicable to refund claims for Service Tax paid under mistake of law.
While quashing an order for compounding of offence, the Revenue held that the amount for the compounding of offence under the GST Act should not exceed the maximum penalty specified in the Act for such offence. Since the demand itself failed on merit and limitation there could not be demand for interest and penalties imposed could not be sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 solely on the basis of the ground that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service exported is untenable in law.
