Goods & Services Tax
Service Tax Case Laws

Search ST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-05

He also relied on the Board Circular No. 766/82/2003-CX dated 15.12.2003 wherein the following has been prescribed :- “On the issue availment of credit by the user-manufacturer, it is clarified that action against the consignee to reverse/recover the CENVAT Credit availed of in such cases need not be resorted to as long as the bonafide nature of the consignee„s transaction is not in dispute.” He argued that the manner in which the Cenvat Registers are, maintained is not the determinative factor for availment of credit.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-02

This position did not change even in the amended Section 67 which was inserted on May 1, 2006. Sub-section (4) of Section 67 empowers the rule making authority to lay down the manner in which value of taxable service is to be determined. However, Section 67(4) is expressly made subject to the provisions of sub-section (1). Mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 67 is manifest, as noted above, viz., the service tax is to be paid only on the services actually provided by the service provider.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-02

Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal Ld. CA with Ms. Sujata Shirlokar Ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant. He reiterating the grounds of appeal and made a detailed submission on the classification. As per his submission, the goods in question is small cigar, hence it is correctly classifiable under 24021010 and not under 24022030 as cigarette claimed by Revenue. He reduced his argument in writing and submitted detailed written submission on 25.04.2019 which was taken on record.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-01

He further submits that demand in the present case is for subsequent period and for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide order No.  /13261/2017, reported as 2017 (11) TMI 760 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD, remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order, after verification of the fact that the waste and scrap generated is out of capital goods or of other materials, on which no Cenvat credit is taken.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-01

Since the proposal of elapsing accumulated credit itself has been setaside, the utilization for the credit out of such accumulated credit cannot be questioned. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and appeal is allowed.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-01

Ms. Priyanka Kalwani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that as regard the rent-a-cab and canteen services the appellant is not contesting as the demand amount along with interest and penalty has already been paid. As regards the telephone service installed in the factory and the mobile phones used by the employees, are in the name of Company, therefore, it is Input Service as held in various judgments as cited below.


Court: CESTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2019-08-01

In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, as the issue is absolutely identical and the Tribunal has considered various judgments and held that banking and financial services are Input Services and credit is admissible. Following the above ratio, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-29

On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that there is a delay of 824 days in filing the present appeal and the appellant has not been able to explain such an inordinate delay and therefore COD application deserves to be dismissed.


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-29

The appellant/importer filed reply to the ROM application wherein he has cited various requirements for issue of Unmanned Aircraft Operator Permit and other regulations of the DGCA. He has also produced a clarification by the DGCA through RTI application filed by M/s. Wings India wherein the DGCA has confirmed that there were never any restrictions to the use of model aircraft at all. 


Court: CESTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2019-07-26

On perusal of the miscellaneous applications for early hearing, we find that the revenue involved in these cases is more than Rs.15 crore. In view of this, we allow these miscellaneous applications for early hearing and direct the Registry list these appeals in its due course.