CESTAT find that since there is no intention of the appellant to evade any duty as the appellant have discharged the service tax and utilized the same though incorrectly but it was a revenue neutral situation as the appellant is otherwise entitled for the refund of the same amount. Hence, in absence of any mala fide penalty under section 78 is not imposable. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 78 is set aside.
Unjust-enrichment does not exist in case where assessee initially charged duty / service tax and subsequently issued credit note for the same
Appellant is eligible for refund even though condition 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 not been complied
K.Baskaran Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) Impugned order levies interest under Section 50 as well as penalty under Section 73(9) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, over and above, reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC). Admittedly, there was no proposal in the pre-assessment notice either for levy of interest or penalty. […]
When the tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism, appellant would be entitled to avail credit of same, which leads to a revenue neutral situation
Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeal) (CESTAT Hyderabad) HC held that the appellant have rightly taken credit in view of Rule 2(l) of CCR which entitles a manufacturer to claim Cenvat credit on input services utilise in manufacture of dutiable taxable goods. HC further hold that there is no bar in […]
Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs Akshoy Kumar Ghosh & Sons (Calcutta High Court) This intra-Court appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 26090/2022. By the said order the learned Single Bench directed the Chief Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs to appoint another […]
Innasimuthu Package Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these appeals, the issue relates to applicability of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006.at Sl. No. 72 which deals with the […]
Wipro Limited India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes (Karnataka High Court) A perusal of the Invoices at Annexure-C will indicate that while supplies are made by the petitioner to M/s. ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, the GSTIN Number mentioned in the Invoices has been incorrectly shown as that of ABB India Limited, […]
Dipal Narendrabhai Shah Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhavnagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) These appeals are directed against the Order-In-Appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the original authority under Rule 26 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The brief facts of the case are that all the appellants in the present appeals were allegedly involved […]
