Indian Tax Solutions
Home | Why Register? | Register | Subscription | Contact Us | Discussion Board | Pay Online
Last Updated : Tuesday 22nd July, 2014 - 4:50pm
NEWS UPDATES

External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) Policy - Review of all-in-cost ceiling Continue reading | Clarification regarding taxation of 'Alternate Investment Funds' having status of non-charitable trusts under the Income-tax Act, 1961 Continue reading | Industry against mandatory deposit clause in tax disputes Continue reading | Anti-dumping duty imposed on ‘Purified Terephthalic Acid' (PTA) including its variants - Medium Quality Terephthalic Acid (MTA) and Qualified Terephthalic Acid (QTA) originating in, or exported from the People's Republic of China , European Union, Korea RP and Thailand Continue reading | Definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Rubber Chemicals, namely, MBT, CBS, TDQ, PVI, TMT and PX-13(6PPD) originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China and PX-13(6PPD) originating in or exported from Korea RP Continue reading | Anti-dumping duty on “Potassium Carbonate”, falling under Chapter 28 of the First Schedule to the Customs originating in, or exported from, the European Union, the People's Republic of China, Korea RP and Taiwan extended till 9 th june 2015 Continue reading | Hindon, Ghaziabad notified for unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods or any class of such goods related to Ministry of Defence , Government of India Continue reading | Exchange Rate for the purpose of import and export with effect from 18-7-2014 Continue reading | Govt reduces Tariff value of Gold and increase the tariff value of silver, palm oil, palmolein Continue reading | Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India - Issue/Transfer of Shares or Convertible Debentures - Revised pricing guidelines. Continue reading |
PEO company
Category Archives: CESTAT
   

CESTAT

2014-ITS-1167-CESTAT-M/s Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- CCE Vadodara , Date of Decision:22.07.14

As per definition of goods given in Section 65 (50) of the Finance Act, 1994 the meaning of goods for the purpose of Service Tax law has to be as assigned in Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Sales of Goods Act 1930. As per the provisions of Section 2(7) of Sales of Goods Act 1930 the goods has to be a category of movable property . Movable property in general trade parlance is considered as a property in goods which can fetch certain price. In the present facts and circumstances of the case the effluent discharge facility is for disposal of a waste which is not being purchased by any person but is only being disposed of by utilizing the services of the appellant. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1165-CESTAT-1. M/s Vandana Art Prints (P) Ltd 2. Shri Prakash Banwarilal Poddar -Vs- CCE&ST., Surat I , Date of Decision : 18.7.2014

The main contention of the Ld Counsel that they are not contesting the issue of duty liability and the interest thereof but are seeking leniency on the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. Ld. Counsel would draw my attention to the OIO wherein the adjudicating authority in un-numbered paragraph on internal page number 8 of the OIO has recorded that no penalties are imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 but imposes penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1166-CESTAT-M/s Vinny Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Shri Hiralal J. Parekh, Shri Devichand M. Munot -Vs- CCE Ahmedabad-I , Date of Decision : 18.7.2014

It is not the Revenue s case that such shortages were not part and parcel of the clearances effected under compounded levy scheme on which duty already stand paid by the appellants. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, we find no justification in separate confirmation of demand of Rs. 3,00,020/-. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1211-CESTAT-CCE, Panchkula -Vs- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , decision: 18.07.2014

I find that the Commissioner has given a categorical finding that the cabs in respect of which credit has been taken were used for providing output service which would clearly make the impugned credit admissible. In the grounds of appeal submitted by the Department they have merely stated that the impugned cabs were not exclusively used for the purpose of maintenance etc. but have not given any evidence to that effect. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that Revenue had not given any evidence contrary to the submissions of the appellants. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1160-CESTAT-M/s. Ashit Shipping Services Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot , Dated 16.07.2014

At the outset, we would like to record that there is severe confusion in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as, the issue started from there being difference in the amounts indicated in the ST-3 returns and recorded in Profit and Loss account. To compound the confusion, the assessee has also not co-operated with the lower authorities in putting the case before them in proper perspective inasmuch as, they did not produce all the documents which were in support of their case. Be that as it may, in the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority has not come to a clear conclusion as to under which category the services rendered by the appellant be classified and taxed. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1161-CESTAT-M/s. Nishant Industrial Security Force -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara , Dated 16.07.2014

The appellant is directed to co-operate with the adjudicating authority and appear before him and produce all the evidences which are in his support so that adjudicating authority can come to a conclusion on the issue. Keeping all the issues open, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice. We direct the appellant not to seek any refund of the amount already deposited by them and lying with the department till the conclusion of the issue.
Continue reading

2014-ITS-1162-CESTAT- M/s. Harsh Construction -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat , Dated 16.07.2014

After considering the submissions made by learned departmental representative, we find that the adjudicating authority, in OIO has correctly recorded the issue involved which is, whether the value of free supply of materials like cement, steel etc. by the service receiver, be included for the discharge of service tax liability or not. We find strong force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel that the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders (P) Limited (supra) will be directly applicable, and this is the view we have taken in an identical issue in respect of the very same issue in the case of Viral Builders.
Continue reading

2014-ITS-1163-CESTAT-M/s. JCT Electronics Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara , Dated 16.07.2014

We find that the appellant has not produced the insurance policy before the lower authorities to come to a conclusion as to ownership of the goods, when it gets passed on to the purchaser. In our view, the entire issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the issue. Appellant is directed to produce all the evidences on which he is relying upon before the lower authority. Adjudicating authority will follow the principles of natural justice before coming to a conclusion.
Continue reading

2014-ITS-1164-CESTAT-M/s Alembic Ltd., M/s Nirayu (P) Ltd. -Vs- CCE Vadodara-II , Dated 16.07.2014

The issue of applicability of Section 11AB in a revenue neutral case was not before the Larger Bench and hence the reference answered by the Larger bench is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case looking to the revenue neutrality we are of the view that the interest under Section 11AB for the clearances made before 11.05.2001 cannot be demanded from the Appellants even though the demands were confirmed by invoking extended period. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1158-CESTAT- M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. -Vs- C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-i , dt. 14.07.2014

On perusal of the records, we find that in appellants own case in appeal no.E/13631/2013-DB wherein appellant had preferred an appeal against the OIO, on an identical issue, we had directed the appellant to deposit 10% of the amount of duty liability confirmed for hearing and disposing the appeal on merits. We do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken by us although this stay order was not available for the first appellate authority to appreciate. Continue reading

Search
Advanced Search
 
Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

Username
Password
  Forgot Password? | Sign Up
 
Subscribe Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter and be kept with latest Indian Tax solutions.
Name
Email