New posts have been created in the rank of Commissioners of Customs in DRI and DGCEI for adjudication of cases as investigated by DRI and DGCEI.
Roxul Rockwool Insulation India Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner )was engaged in the manufacture of stone-wool insulation products (Impugned goods) and their manufacturing unit was located at Dahej Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
hermax Ltd. (the Appellant) had cleared certain inputs to its job workers as per the procedure laid down under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules) for manufacture of intermediate goods.
Sapna Packaging Industries (the Appellant) received an Order-In-Original on August 17, 2013 and preferred an appeal against the said order before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on November 18, 2013.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground of being
In the instant case, the Department preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that deemed exports and exports are not different.
Shri Rauf Bombaywala (the Appellant) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against Order-in-Original No. 01/2014-15 dated May 7, 2014 vide which penalty of Rs.1.17 crore was imposed on the Appellant.
In the instant case, Zim Laboratories Ltd.(the Appellant) filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (the Impugned Order). Accordingly, the Appellant was required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax/ penalty
Jubilant Organosys Ltd. (the Appellant) adjusted excess payment of Service tax paid in some months against tax payable in following months and contended that adjustment was valid. However, the Appellant also filed refund claims of the excess payment of Service tax for dealing with the situation if adjustment is not allowed.
Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant nominated to conduct Service Tax Audit by Amendment in Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 The Central Government vide Notification No. 23/2014-ST dated December 5, 2014 had substituted Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (the Service Tax Rules) with the following: “(2) Every assessee, shall, on […]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai also relied upon the AIA case and held that even though Notification No. 102 requires refund claim to be filed with the jurisdictional Customs Authorities, but when the original application for refund was filed within time, though before wrong authority, it cannot be said that the said application was barred by limitation.
