Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC grants Cultgear Pvt Ltd refund, pending GST tribunal formation, with a bank guarantee. Liberty to appeal extended til...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Madras High Court judgment in Amarjyothi Carrying Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) on entitlement to persona...
Goods and Services Tax : Discover how the Odisha AAR allows ITC on exempt services where the supplier has charged GST. Understand conditions and implicatio...
Goods and Services Tax : In M/s. THDC India Ltd, Uttarakhand AAR ruled that government authority services like design engineering and water tank constructi...
Goods and Services Tax : In Piramal Enterprises Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay HC ruled against revenue's selective interpretation of business transfe...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Goods and Services Tax : Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors Vs Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors (Supreme Court of India) The ...
Goods and Services Tax : The 45th meeting of Goods and Services Tax Council (“GST Council”) is scheduled to be held on September 17, 2021. The Ministry...
Custom Duty, Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court in M/s Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14737/2021[T-CUS] issu...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC remands R.S Marketing's case, granting a fresh hearing on ITC discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A due to non-co...
Service Tax : Zest Buildtek Promotors Vs Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)Issuance of attachment order under provi...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that failing to record reasons in INS-01 before initiating a search under Section 67 of CGST Act invalidates th...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court rules that appeals cannot be dismissed for procedural lapses, emphasizing timely filing. Key case: Indian Potash...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Kerala High Court ruling on luxury tax applicability to services at Ayurveda Centre, Beauty Parlor, and Convention Cen...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 32/2015-Central Excise Dated- 4th June, 2015 Ethanol produced from molasses generated from cane crushed in the ...
Service Tax : Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST Dated the 3rd June, 2015 It is further clarified that exemption from service tax still continues to ser...
Custom Duty : the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the State) from whole of the duty as specified under the First Schedule and whole of...
Excise Duty : Grants exemption from Basic Excise Duty to goods donated or purchased out of cash donations for the relief and rehabilitation of p...
Custom Duty : New posts have been created in the rank of Commissioners of Customs in DRI and DGCEI for adjudication of cases as investigated by ...
The Hon’ble CESTAT relied on the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. [2009 (248) ELT 826 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat inCCE Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. [2011 (21) STR 367 (Guj.)] wherein it was held that the refund filed with the Department, though with the wrong authority has to be treated as having been filed on the first date.
Amalgamated Company would be eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit lying in the books of Amalgamating Company when all the facts were intimated to the Department, even though it isn’t in the prescribed form IPF Vikram India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 362 (New Delhi – CESTAT)]
The high court held that there was no evidence on record to show that the entire import was made at the instance of the group companies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be barred from transferring the rights in property unless the revenue provides sufficient evidence that the entire import was at the instance of the group companies and the petitioner was involved in it.
MCA issues Seventh Order for removal of difficulties which relates to appointment of auditors in Partly Government Companies The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has come out with the Companies (Removal of Difficulties) Seventh Order, 2014 dated September 4, 2014 in order to remove difficulties relating to appointment of auditors in partly Government Companies.
The Hon’ble High Court held that once order to pay duty was set aside, the refund is automatic. Refusal of refund on the basis that the exigibility of tax is yet to be adjudicated was not a valid reason. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Multiplex Fertilizers (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 359 (High Court of Karnataka)]
Accordingly, it was held that the manufacturer or exporter is not barred from seeking a determination of the Brand Rate of drawback under Rule 7 merely because, at the time of export, the Petitioner had applied for and granted drawback at All Industry Rate as determined under Rule 3.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi also relied upon the decision in the Metric Solution case and held that Cenvat credit in respect of inputs/ input services received by an output service provider during the period prior to his obtaining Service tax registration is admissible and denial of Cenvat credit on this ground is not correct.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that there is no dispute as to the fact that amount lying in balance in the Cenvat credit account of the Appellant. Further, it was noted that refund of the unutilized Cenvat credit does not fall under any of the rules and that there are no express or implicit provisions in the Excise Act and the Credit Rules for grant of refund of Cenvat Credit balance lying unutilized at the time of closure of the unit.
For the purpose of availing Cenvat credit, there is no requirement that the Service tax should have been deposited by the service provider before the availment of the credit. In terms of Rule 4(7) of the Credit Rules, the Cenvat credit in respect of input service shall be allowed, on or after the day on which payment is made of the value of input service and the Service tax paid or payable as is indicated in the invoice.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that in terms of agreement, principals were required to maintain godown and hence, principals were liable to pay godown rent and the Appellant acted only as their agent. Similarly, bills of labour contractors for arranging loading and unloading and bills of transporters were in name of principals and not in name of assessee. Hence, payment against these bills was made by the Appellant acting as pure agent on behalf of principal. Therefore, these expenses would not be includible in assessable value.
