HIL Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In this case though initially the appellant have taken the cenvat credit on the common input service which were used for manufacture of dutiable goods as well in relation to exempted service i.e. trading activity, however, on pointing out by the department, the appellant have calculated the […]
Veer Enterprise Vs C.C.-Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find the goods have been cleared and duty discharged as per the Tariff Heading proposed by the department. The Certificate of Chartered Engineer produced by the party is actually deficient, as it has been obtained behind the back of Customs Officials and does not show the time and […]
Tansi Pump Unit Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellants are registered as manufacturer of hand-pumps, EB line material, Benches, Desks etc. They availed small scale exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 and after crossing the exemption limit were clearing the products on payment of duty. Appellant […]
Velji P & Sons Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The case of the department is that the appellant M/s. Rawmin Mining and Industries Pvt. Ltd. is 100% export oriented unit has cleared 444903.645 MTs of their final product namely Beneficiated Bauxite and stored at the plot allotted to their custom house agent and shipping […]
S. Vaidya and Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed three refund claims for refund of SAD amount of Rs.10,97,996/-. After scrutinizing the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that the sales invoices were not endorsed with the mandatory declaration that “no cenvat credit can be […]
Refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original notification no.102/2007-Customs. It was also held that period of limitation for first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification.
Assessing Cloud Computing Tax Dispute – AWS Inc. challenges ITAT Delhi on Royalty & FTS, seeks conditional stay on outstanding demands.
Non-specification of limb of the notice would render section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings invalid. ITAT held that notice u/s 271(1)(c) is omnibus notice, thus defective which goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
While processing of TDS statement, the late fee, if any shall be computed in accordance with provisions of Section 234E of the Act. As a corollary, prior to amendment under Section 200A of the Act, levy of fee under Section 234E during processing of TDS statement is not tenable.
Mere submission of amendment by post to Charity Commissioner cannot be considered to be due registration with Charity Commissioner. What is required to be shown by assessee is that amendment carried out to trust deed has been registered with Charity Commissioner and his approval has been obtained.
