CESTAT Mumbai held that legality or admissibility of credit can only be question to the Input Service Distributor, since at the receiver end no detail would be available regarding the nature of services.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the purpose of determination of limitation the relevant date in case of services availed will be challans showing the date of payment within one year.
CESTAT Mumbai held that provisions of rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable only when the manufacturer is engaged in both manufacture of dutiable and final product. It is not applicable in case of by-products.
CESTAT held that benefit of refund of SAD paid u/s. 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of notification no. 102/2007-CUS as amended by notification no. 93/2008-CUS dated 01/08/2008 is available even if the same is paid through DEPB scrip.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellants are not liable to pay service tax, provisions of section 70 of the Service Tax Act are not applicable. Hence, penalty for filing of service tax return belatedly is unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant being a subsequent purchaser of the goods from the M/s Philips India who had allegedly purchased the imported the goods hence confirmation of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 is not applicable to the waste products which arises during the process of manufacture and is sold for some consideration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund on inputs in respect of Club or Association Services, Services by Air-conditioned Restaurants, Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services, Mandap Keeper Services, Convention Services, Cable Operator Services and for Sponsorship Services as well as Event Management Services were already allowed to the appellant in earlier period. Hence the same is allowed here as well.
Sai Charan Tours & Travels Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The only issue before us is the mandate to produce the certificate insisted upon as condition for provisional release from among the prescriptions in the licencing notes pertaining to imported vehicles. The Tribunal, in Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, […]
Denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 and the department could not reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. Since the availability of credit had not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit could not be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services
