The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)],held that rejecting the claim arbitrarily on the point of jurisdiction, is not correct
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there are two things which become apparent from the reading of the Order of the High Court that are: The duty for which the claim of refund is made, was paid under protest by the Respondent during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings; Further, the intermediary product was not marketable.
The Hon’ble High Court, Gujarat relying upon the Order addressed by the Department to Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on the same facts and judgment in the case of Ralli Engine Ltd. Vs. Union Of India [2004 (4) TMI 590 – Gujarat High Court], held that the Appellant is permitted to pay the Excise duty foregone from the legally availed Cenvat credit account.
Assessee cannot insist upon cross-examination of all the informers, especially the ones whose statement may not be relied upon by the Department for maintaining the demand- Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 2 Others [2015 (12) TMI 1206 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
MRP based valuation applicable to institutional buyers for goods which are specified under Section 4A of the Excise Act, covered by SWM Act, 1976 & Rules thereof and further, MRP was affixed on the goods supplied which are not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules thereof- Commr. of Central Excise, Panchkula Vs. Liberty Shoes Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1159 – SUPREME COURT]
The Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II Vs. Indeos ABS Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)], which was further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2011 (3) TMI 1575 – SUPREME COURT]
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no such writ petition to claim refund of duty, interest and penalty was maintainable when the proceedings in respect of the Respondent had attained finality and the amount was recovered.
Transaction value of identical goods can be taken as assessable value of imported goods in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules only after making an adjustment of commercial and comparable effects- Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2015 (12) TMI 1043 (NEW DELHI – CESTAT)]
Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai held that the charges of technical knowhow cannot be included in the value of imported goods in terms of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules where these expenses aren’t condition to sale of the imported goods.
The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized time and again that the Orders pursuant to a Personal Hearing either by the Court or the Tribunal or any quasi-judicial body ought to be passed expeditiously and within a reasonable time.
