In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the tax amount and hence the respondents cannot take advantage of the provision under the fourth proviso to Section 78. Having not paid the penalty amount within one month from the date of the Order-in-Original even though the legal provision was clearly brought to the notice of the respondents by the original authority in para 14 of his order, the respondents cannot be given the benefit of paying 25% of the reduced penalty.
The question whether ‘Mithi River’ is a river or not, is a pure question of fact which needs to be examined and settled at the final hearing stage of the appeal. For the present, we consider the fact that the activity undertaken by the appellant in the aforesaid stream of water was ‘dredging’. Their limited case is that the activity was undertaken in a drain and not in a river. WE note that even the agreement between the appellant and MMRDA describes the stream as ‘Mithi River’. It cannot be called otherwise merely by reason of the fact that rainwater or domestic sewage from the surrounding areas are also flowing into it or that industrial effluents are discharged into it.
Substantial benefit cannot be denied on the basis of mere technical violation. In this case, the respondents have made effort to obtain certified copy of the bill of entry which was also denied to them. Further it is not disputed that the goods have not suffered duty and they have not been used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for CENVAT credit availed by them on the strength of xerox copy. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that this issue has been already settled by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) ELT 369 = (2010-IST-46-HC-MUM-ST wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that input service credit availed by the assessee on outdoor catering is available subject to that the assessee does not charge anything from the employees (in case the cost of food supplied to the worker forms part of the assessable value.) As there is no allegation ag
Explore the CESTAT judgment upholding precedent decisions on EOU duty discharge and DTA sale eligibility. Know the legal insights in this insightful read.
Refund – export of services – relevant date – The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in such a case the relevant date is the date when the payment of service (exported) is received by the assessee not the date when the service is provided. Against that order, Revenue is in appeal on the premise that the relevant date is the date of service tax paid as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. – Held that: – it is very much clear in the case of export of service, the relevant date is the date when the payment of service exported has been received by the assessee.
Interest on refund of pre-deposit amount is payable from the date of receipt of order of the tribunal by the commissioner. Interest to be paid on amount of pre deposit at the rate prescribed under the statutory provisions of the Act and not as per rate determined on equitable principles by Tribunal.
I find that this is a case where the impugned period is from 01.04.05 to 15.09.05. The respondent assessees have taken service tax registration only on 06.12.05 and the very first return has been filed by them on 04.12.06, after a long delay. I also find that in para 2 (iv), there is an allegation of suppression of value of taxable service in the show cause notice dated 12.03.07.
The assessee filed appeal to the Tribunal on denial of credit by lower authority on factory garden maintenance, plant housekeeping services. As regards insurance and tours and travels credit, it was denied on the grounds of non-availability of records.
Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. („the assessee?) is registered with Central Excise Department for the manufacture of pre-fabricated steel buildings, falling under Chapter 94 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee also avails of the CENVAT credit facility under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 („CENVAT Rules?). From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2008, the assessee cleared its finished goods, namely, pre-fabricated building without payment of Central Excise duty to a unit located in Special Economic Zone („SEZ?) under a letter of undertaking. These goods so cleared to SEZ without payment of duty were regarded as exports and accordingly, the assessee filed six refund claims in respect of the unutilized CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules. The refund claims filed by the assessee were rejected by the Original Adjudicating authority and on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the Adjudicating authority was set aside by concluding that the supplies to SEZ units amount to exports for the purpose of Rule 5 of CENVAT Rules. The Department has filed the present appeal against the said order to the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal („CESTAT?).
