On a careful and conjoint reading of the Drawback Rules, it is found that there is no prohibition set out in the Drawback Rules, which debars an exporter from seeking determination of the Brand Rate of drawback under Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules, merely because at the time of export, he had already claimed the All Industry Rate of drawback under Rule 3 thereof. In fact, the Drawback Rules seem to suggest otherwise.
It has been made explicit that where the claim for Duty Drawback is filed with reference to the rate in the AIR Schedule, an application for fixation of Brand Rate under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 shall not be
Emitec Emission Control Tech. (I) Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) imported certain goods from Emitec Gesellschaft Fur Emissions technologie GmBH (EGM Germany) which is the parent company of the Appellant.
Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd (the Appellant) are the traders who, imported goods by discharging Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD)under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and subsequently domestically sold such goods on payment of CST/VAT
The tariff items and descriptions of goods in the said Schedule are aligned with the tariff items and descriptions of goods in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) at the four-digit level only.
Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd.(the Appellant) entered into an Agreement with KPH Dream Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (KPH) for sponsoring the cricket team Kings XI Punjab. On the said contractual consideration, a Service tax of Rs. 37,08,000/- was collected by KPH from the Appellant
Siddhi Vinayak Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2014 (10) TMI 689 – CESTAT MUMBAI] Certain goods belonging to Siddhi Vinayak Steel (the Appellant) and lying at Shreenath Warehouse were seized when the SIIB found that certain goods were illegally imported through Chennai port under DEEC license for local market in Mumbai.
NIIT Limited (the Petitioner) executed a contract dated June 29, 2002 (the Contract) with the Government of Andhra Pradesh for imparting computer education in High Schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh, including leasing of computer hardware, software and connected accessories on Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) basis.
In the instant case, Kirtida Silk Mills (the Appellant) availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, which was denied by the Department and the proceedings were initiated for recovery of Cenvat credit wrongly taken.
Cenvat credit allowable on Capital goods used initially in the manufacturing of exempted goods but, at time of receipt, the Assessee had intention to use said Capital goods for manufacturing of both dutiable as well as exempted goods
