The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that as long as the chillies were transferred from Secunderabad branch to Cochin branch, which had been exported and the conditions enumerated in Section 5(1) of the CST Act are satisfied
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras relied upon the decision in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Chennai and another [(2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad)] and held that when the fact of Petitioner paying the taxes to his supplier is not under dispute, the Petitioner cannot be compelled to reverse the input tax Credit due to non-payment of VAT liability by the selling dealer.
CESTAT, Delhi has relied upon the plethora of judgments and held that merely on the basis of papers/records seized allegedly containing the production & dispatch or statement of any employee/director of the Appellant accepting the facts would not suffice to conclude that the Appellant has removed the goods without payment of duty, in absence of any corroborative evidence.
CESTAT, Allahabad held that the intimation to Revenue is required only in the case of loss or destruction of goods by natural cause or accident. However, in the instant case, there was no such accident.
Essar Oil Ltd. (the Respondent) has availed Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on various services, such as ‘Rent-a-Cab’, ‘Tour Operators’, and ‘Travel Agent’ hired by them (the Impugned input services) which were used by their employees for their movement within the refinery premises or for outward travelling in connection with business.
When proceedings against manufacturer stand concluded on payment of disputed amount of duty along with interest and penalty, no penalty would be imposable under Rule 26 of the Excise Rules on other persons like traders
Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering every aspect of the issue examined by the Tribunal has observed that the price of motorcycle manufactured by the Respondent were market driven and the Respondent did not follow cost of production plus reasonable profit pricing policy.
Rico Gems Corporation and others (“the Appellants”) imported certain goods which were thereafter sold to Telebrand India Pvt. Ltd., whRico Gems Corporation and others (“the Appellants”) imported certain goods which were thereafter sold to Telebrand India Pvt. Ltd., who is engaged in business of selling of goods through telemarketing.
Supreme Court held that the demurrage charges are paid after the goods reached at Indian ports and therefore, it is post-importation event and cannot form part of transaction value. Thus, the Respondent isn’t liable to pay Customs duty on these demurrage charges.
CESTAT, Mumbai held that the provision of unjust enrichment wouldn’t be applicable as the excess amount paid by mistake was in the nature of deposit and not duty. It was further held that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate produced by the Appellant showing excess paid interest not passed on
