Skip to content Skip to footer

Appeal related to value of service cannot be appealed to the Hon’ble High court under section 35G of the Central Excise Act

The respondent assessee undertook a works contract for the supply, erection, installation, and commissioning of the project. The supply included manufactured as well as bought-out items. The revenue bifurcated the contract and demanded service tax on technical assistance rendered during the said project under “consulting engineer” service. A demand of about Rs. 2 crores was…

Read More

Assessee is eligible for refund of SAD paid during the time of import if VAT is also paid on the said article in terms of Notification No. 102/2007 – Customs dated 14.09.2007

The assessee is a manufacturer of particleboard. It is exempt from payment of central excise duty. During the course of manufacture, an intermediate product, viz., impregnated paper, comes into existence. The Revenue proposed to demand central excise duty on such intermediate products. Periodical show cause notices were issued, and demands were confirmed. The appellate authority…

Read More

Excise duty leviability on intermediate product which is not marketable

The assessee is a manufacturer of particleboard. It is exempt from payment of central excise duty. During the course of manufacture, an intermediate product, viz., impregnated paper, comes into existence. The Revenue proposed to demand central excise duty on such intermediate products. Periodical show cause notices were issued, and demands were confirmed. The appellate authority…

Read More

Input tax credit cannot be denied under section 16(4) in terms of Notification No. 09.2023-CT dated 31.03.2023 and the Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023

The petitioner is undertaking a works contract for the state government. It could not file the GSTR-3B return in time for want of receipt of consideration. The input tax credit was disallowed on the ground that the time under section 16(4) of the CGST had lapsed. Accordingly, demand was confirmed. The petitioner had challenged Section…

Read More