CESTAT Bangalore dismisses Ambience Constructions’ appeal on service tax refund, ruling it time-barred. Details of the case and key arguments provided.
CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH Wadpack (P.) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise FINAL ORDER NO. 700 OF 2012 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2010 NOVEMBER 5, 2012 ORDER 1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, the short question is whether, for the period from April 2005 to June 2007, the appellant was entitled to […]
There is one more ground on which the refund claim has been rejected i.e. prior to 16.05.2006 the appellant did not have registration as an input service distributor and hence the appellant could not have availed service tax credit on ISD basis. However, what is required to be seen is whether the appellant received the services at Nasik and if so the appellant used the same for rendering of the output service. These facts need to be verified by the revenue instead of summarily rejecting the claim.
In the present case, we find that the assessee uses various materials like flour, ghee, oil etc. for the production of various items. The production is done by following a particular set process. The various raw materials when consumed lose their individual and independent identity and a different and new product comes into existence.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal the third respondent herein, is requested to dispose of the waiver/stay applications filed by the petitioner as early as possible, preferably, on or before 1.2.2013. The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps till the waiver/stay applications of the petitioner are disposed of by the Tribunal.
The issues regarding genuineness of the sale deed, undervaluation, etc. are beyond the purview of instant CP, since a consideration of oppression and mismanagement arises only if the petitioners are found to be shareholders of the company. That issue being held against them the other issues pleaded in the CP do not arise. The petitioners have approached the Bench with unclean hands and they are not entitled to any equitable reliefs. The attempt of the petitioners to re-agitate the concluded issues is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The company petition is devoid of any merits.
complaint under section 138 of the Act without signature is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is maintainable and we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
Considering the low tax effect in the case on hand and the substantial questions of law of general importance are not established, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
If demand of tax raised by the Assessing Authority is more than twice the admitted tax liability, then recovery of difference of tax has to be kept in abeyance during pendency by first appeal before the CIT (Appeals) as per the CBDT instructions.
A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that an assessee will be entitled to claim deduction under the said provision if he fulfills all the conditions mentioned therein. Clause (a)(ii) of the aforesaid provision, which is relevant for our purpose, provides that in a case where housing project has been approved by the local authority on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 and has been completed within 4 years
