Indian Tax Solutions
Home | Why Register? | Register | Subscription | Contact Us | Discussion Board | Pay Online
Last Updated : Friday 19th December, 2014 - 4:35pm
NEWS UPDATES

Levy of penal charges on non-maintenance of minimum balances in savings bank accounts Continue reading | Review of Accredited Clients Programme (ACP) - CBEC issues guidelines Continue reading | Exchange Rate for the purpose of import and export with effect from  19th December , 2014 Continue reading | Procedure for export of Certified Organic Products has been deferred till further orders. Continue reading | Authentication of supply invoice/ ARE-3 by the Central Excise Authorities for Claiming Deemed export benefits Continue reading | Amendment to CESTAT Appeal Forms -CBEC issues guidelines Continue reading | Govt. amends exchange rate for Japanese Yen Continue reading | PAC Bats for Revamping of 6 Economic Intel Agencies Continue reading | Central Government exempts all goods donated or purchased out of cash donations, for the relief and rehabilitation of the people affected by the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir Continue reading | Central Government exempts all goods when imported into India and intended for donation for the relief and rehabilitation of the people affected by the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir Continue reading |
PEO company
Category Archives: CESTAT
   

CESTAT

2014-ITS-1782-CESTAT-M/s. Tops Security Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi , Date of Decision : 19.12.2014

The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether the service tax payment made by the appellant s Mumbai unit could be considered as due discharge of service tax by the appellant. It is observed from the case records that some excess payment of service tax has been paid by the appellant s Mumbai unit but whether that excess payment was with respect to the appellant s unit at Silvassa is not clear. Appellant has approached their Mumbai Bank branch in September 2014 to either provide a certificate or give them the copies of TR-6/ GAR -7 challans/ Bank Certificates that during the period 1998-99 to 2004-05 entire service tax also was paid at Mumbai for the Silvassa unit. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1781-CESTAT- M/s. Maize Products -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Date of Decision : 19.12.2014

It is also not clear from the findings of the lower authorities as to why service tax paid on the documents can not be correlated with the export documents. The admissibility of refunds and verification of documents/ records is properly required to be done in view of the judicial pronouncements of this Bench and CBEC Circular dated 12.3.2009, which can only be done by the Adjudicating authority. These cases are thus required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding the case in the light of relied upon case laws and CBEC Circular dated 12.3.2009, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appelalnt. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1780-CESTAT- M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat , Date of Decision : 19.12.2014

In view of the above case law and also the settled proposition of law even in a clandestinely evasion cases also the CENVAT credit of inputs/ input services admissible, during the period of offence, is allowed to be abated from the total duty demanded even at the appeal stage Continue reading

2014-ITS-1779-CESTAT- M/s. Shail Engieering & Welding Works M/s. Shail Crane Services -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara , Date of Decision : 19.12.2014

So far as denial of cenvat credit is concerned, it is observed that no show cause notice has been issued to the appellant for denial of show cause notice and confirming demand without issue of show cause notice to that effect is in violation of principles of natural justice. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1778-CESTAT-Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat -Vs- M/s. Rameshwar Textile Mills Pvt. Limited , Date of Hearing/ Decision : 17.12.2014

It is observed that the reliance placed by the Revenue on an undertaking given by the Respondent in the year 2001 was not properly appreciated by the first appellate authority under which Respondent has clearly agreed to pay the dues pertaining to M/s. Namokar Processors as and when the issue is decided in favour of the department. There is nothing in this undertaking to suggest that liabilities arising after undertaking will be paid by the Respondent. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1777-CESTAT-M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Customs, Kandla , Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.12.2014

The redemption fine so imposed by the adjudicating authority was reduced to Rs. 7.5 Lakh as a result of CESTAT s order No. A/681-683/WZB/2005 dated 19.7.2005. In spite of the above modification, appellant did not redeem the goods. Auction of the goods was done after 07.10.2006 after giving a notice to the appellants. The goods confiscated by the Adjudicating authority were not redeemed, within the stipulated time either after Adjudication order or its modification by CESTAT. As per Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, reproduced below, the title of the confiscated goods vests with the Central Government and appellant had no claim on such goods and its sale proceeds:- Section 126. On confiscation, property to vest in Central Government. – (1) When any goods are confiscated under this Act, such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1775-CESTAT-M/s. Kalupur Commercial Co. Op. Bank Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.12.2014

Once it is categorically held by Commissioner (Appeals) that appellant was under a bonafide belief that service tax as demanded was not payable, then a view can not be entertained that the facts will justify imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Duty demanded in the show cause notice was Rs. 11,10,965/- but was confirmed only to the extent of Rs. 7,14,996/- in the Adjudication proceedings. The differential tax was only a reconciliation of accounts maintained by the appellant. Appellant is a co-operative bank. In view of the above facts and the relied upon case laws this case is not fit for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1776-CESTAT-M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad , Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.12.2014

 I find that the adjudicating authority by following the direction of the Hon’ble Tribunal, has adjudicated the matter afresh after extending ample opportunity to the appellant for providing necessary documents in support of their refund claim. I find that the appellant have failed to produced required documents, accordingly the adjudicating authority has rejected the case on grounds of non submissions of the documents and sans the same it could not be ascertained the vital aspects of the admissibility of the refund claim in accordance with the conditions as stipulated in the Notification No. 03/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008, as amended. The appellant have not adduced any further documents to this stage of appeal in support of their claim of refund, in the circumstances, the admissibility of the claim is not ascertainable. Continue reading

2014-ITS-1774-CESTAT-M/s. Nana Udyog -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat , Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.12.2014

 In the group of cases decided, question was with respect to service tax paid on GTA service on outward transportation of goods. In the case on hand we are concerned with courier service utilised by the manufacturer for transportation of goods from factory and also bringing inputs into the factory. Such service would certainly be covered within the expression: any service used by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal: used in Rule 2(l). Continue reading

2014-ITS-1773-CESTAT-M/s. Crystal Organizers Pvt. Limited -Vs- Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot , Date of Hearing / Decision : 05.12.2014

 It is clear from Rule 6(2A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 that date of presentation of the cheque by an assessee is the date of payment of tax and not the date of realisation. 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