Cestat judgments

The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against them on the allegation of clandestine removal of goods, on the basis of statement given by Shri. Kishore Aggarwal one of the appellant here, and the data retrieved from the Laptop of Shri Lalit Aggarwal and Shri. Vikas Varshney, […...

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 23.5.2017 has passed an interim order in W.P. No. 4551/2017 and accordingly, the demand of 10% additional mandatory deposit over and above the amount deposited before Commissioner (Appeals) is stayed till further orders. The circular dated 27.4.2017 issued by this office is also kept in abeyance....

This as a fit care where the Bench may recommend to Tamilnadu Bar Council to take appropriate action against him. But, by keeping a lenient view in mind, we adjourn the case at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees on thousand only) which will deposited by the counsel toward Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three days from today. On the nex...

In this case the appellant itself has arranged for transportation and paid the transportation cost and the same has been recovered from the bottlers. The contention of the appellant is that they were under bona fide belief that the transportation cost is borne by the bottlers and they are required to pay service tax. ...

Next question needs to be considered is whether the demand for the period March 2003 to February 2007 can be enforced when the demand notice was issued on 14.9.2007. In the aforesaid case where the Honorable High Court observed that the in absence of time limit prescribed for recovery, a reasonable period, be applied for […]...

These are 11 appeals filed by the Revenue against various impugned orders. As the issue involved in all these appeals are similar and the respondent is same, we take up all these appeals together for disposal. The respondents are registered with the Department for service tax purposes. They have filed refund claims under rule 5 of Cenvat ...

Rejection of refund claim filed under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., dt. 6-10-2007, as amended is the subject matter of present dispute. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 6-8-2010 has denied the refund benefit on the ground that though, to and fro freight charges have been claimed by service provider, no sep...

There is no provision in Service Tax Rules for inclu­sion of value of scrap as an additional consideration; only the amounts received towards taxable services are leviable to service tax. ...

Appellant is eligible for rebate of Central Excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods, even in case where customs duty component is claimed as drawback. ...

It was not even alleged that they collected a amount as ‘duty' but not paid it to the exchequer. None of situation specified in section 11D is applicable in the present case. In fact, in such a situation, there should not have any grievance to the parties since the appellants had paid the amount whatever they collected and paid it compl...