Amount Paid In Indian Rupees Not Liable For Payment Of Any Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Name: Hamon Shriram Cottrell Pvt Ltd v/s Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No. 10049 of 2019
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, ruled that the amount of Rs. 1,43,25,803/- which was paid to M/s Shriram EPC Ltd in Indian Rupees is not liable for payment of any service tax.
Demand Cannot Be Sustained Beyond Normal Period: CESTAT
Case Name: M/s. Sewing Systems Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: Customs Appeal No. 21473 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore held that the demand cannot be sustained beyond the normal period.
Case Name: Container Corporation of India Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs Bangalore
Citation: Customs Appeal No. 20674 of 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore observed that operating from an area which is not notified tantamount to violation of Section 45 read with Section 7 and 8 of the Customs Act, 1962, since storing and clearing of the cargo from such unnotified area would be a violation of provisions of Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Name: M/s.Tamilnadu Cricket Association v/s The Commissioner of Customs
Citation: Customs Appeal No.40979 of 2015
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai allowed the service tax exemption to Tamil Nadu Cricket Association while stating that flood light is a functional part of the stadium and can be used in world cup as well as one day international matches.
Erroneous Availment Of Cenvat Credit Recoverable Only After Insertion Of Recovery Provision: CESTAT
Case Name: M/s. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Commissioner of Service Tax, LTU
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No. 1681 of 2010
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore, found that erroneous availment of Cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be recoverable only after insertion of the recovery provision to the said Rule by insertion of an Explanation through amending Notification.
CESTAT Allows 57 Dept’s Appeals, Maintained Enhancement In Imported Goods Value By AO
Case Name: Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v/s Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Customs Appeal No. 51976 Of 2019 And Customs Cross Objection No. 50146 Of 2021
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, allowed 57 department’s appeals and maintained enhancement in imported goods value made by AO.
Case Name: M/s Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Agra
Citation: Excise Appeal No.70204 of 2019
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, ruled that the excise duty demand can’t be based on director’s statement in absence of corroborative evidence.
No Service Tax Liability Can Be Fastened On Unidentified Service: CESTAT
Case Name: M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. v/s Commissioner, Service Tax, Noida
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No.70215 of 2016
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, ruled that no service tax liability can be fastened on unidentified service.
Case Name: M/s. Valere Power (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore
Citation: Central Excise Appeal No. 22 of 2012
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, ruled that mere supply of additional redundant goods along with SMPS used in MCBs would not result in manufacturing for attracting excise duty.
No Service Tax Payable On Receiving ‘indent Commission’ From Their Overseas Holding Company: CESTAT
Case Name: M/s. Sartorius Stedium India Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Commissioner of Service Tax
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No. 1898 of 2010
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench has held that no service tax payable on receiving ‘indent commission’ from their overseas holding company.
Interest To Be Calculated Of Duty Short-Paid From Succeeding Month On Which Duty Was Payable: CESTAT
Case Name: Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited v/s The Commissioner of Central Excise (LTU)
Citation: Central Excise Appeal No. 935 of 2012
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench has held that on finalization of provisional assessment, the interest is to be calculated of the duty short-paid from the succeeding month on which the duty was payable.
Case Name: M/s Prakhar Gupta V/S Commissioner, Central (Prev.) Lucknow
Citation: Customs Appeal No.70439 of 2022
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, ruled that clearance of consignment attempted by a customs broker without physical verification was not enough to revoke license.
Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied Due To Incorrect Address On Invoices: CESTAT
Case Name: M/s. National Engineering Industries Limited v/s Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur
Citation: Excise Appeal No. 55041 of 2023 [SM]
The Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench has held that cenvat credit cannot be denied due to incorrect address on invoices.
