Navshiv Retails Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) imported branded mobile phones (impugned goods) for which Customs clearance was sought. During examination, it was found by the Department that International Mobile Equipment Identification (IMEI) number of impugned goods
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Nelco Ltd. [(2002) 144 E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)] which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [(2002) 144 E.L.T. A104 (S.C.)], holding that in case of remand matter, the Department was not entitled to hold on to the amount deposited by the Assessee during the course of investigation as pre-deposit.
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (the Appellant) was the job worker of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd (Glaxo) and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid by Glaxo, the Principal manufacturer. The Appellant was clearing their final product manufactured on job work basis on payment of duty by utilizing Cenvat credit availed by them.
Where two Exemption Notifications, one granting absolute unconditional exemption and other granting unconditional partial exemption, is available to the Assessee, the Assessee has an option to opt the Exemption Notification which is more beneficial to him.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (the Board) vide Circular No.993/17/2014-CX dated January 5, 2015 has issued a clarification on the matter of mandatory pre-deposit of duty and penalty for filing an appeal as was specified in Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated September 16, 2014.
In the instant case, Garodia Special Steels Ltd. (the Appellant) paid Service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency on Reverse Charge basis. However, during the audit of their unit, the reconciliation of ledger accounts with the Service Tax Returns revealed
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore relying on the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2006 (205) ELT 458 (Tri.-Mumbai)], held that the amount paid subsequent to the Order of the Adjudication Authority cannot be hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and as such, the Appellant is eligible for refund of the amount.
In view of judgment in L.H. Sugar case, since recipient of GTA services were liable to file return under Section 71Aof the Finance Act and Section 73 thereof, as amended by the Finance Act, 2003, did not refer to Section 71A of the Finance Act, hence, the Assessee was not covered by Section 73 of the Finance Act and the SCN is bad;
Amendment in Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Notification F. No. 1/40/2013-CL-V dated December 31, 2014 has made amendment in the Companies (Cost Records And Audit) Rules, 2014 through Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Amendment Rules, 2014 (the New Cost Audit Rules).
When there is no provision for filing a Second Application, the question of limitation does not arise. Further, the time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act is for the First Application and the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore there can be no limitation in respect of the proceedings pursuing the refund claim.
