CESTAT Chennai held that when no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 the department cannot reject the request for conversion of shipping bill.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat Credit availed on the strength of duty paying documents cannot be denied alleging that invoices issued by manufacturer were not genuine.
Explore CESTAT Chennai’s decision in Emerson Process Management Chennai case. Learn about duty on intermediate goods, Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004, and implications for manufacturers
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services of transportation of goods by a person other than GTA are clearly exempt under Section 66D (P)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The case between the Commissioner of Customs (Air) and RBR Knit Process Pvt Ltd, regarding the eligibility for custom duty exemption of imported membrane systems, concluded with a favorable verdict for the latter by CESTAT Chennai.
The CESTAT in Chennai ruled in favor of the department, classifying Samsung Galaxy Tabs as ADP Machines/Tablet Computers rather than Mobile Phones, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) prior decision.
Held that the goods were brought in the factory premises without having proper invoices/documents with intent to clear them clandestinely. Accordingly, confiscation and the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed u/s. 11 AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is absolutely justified.
Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on the Jindal Fibres Vs C.C.-Kandla case, regarding penalties for misdeclared goods under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Understand the implications for companies operating within SEZs.
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of Basic Customs Duty under notification no. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available as there is no violation of conditions. Further, demand proposed on misconception of facts and law is unjustified.
Held that as a party to the joint-venture, obligations and responsibilities discharged by co-venturer cannot be brought under service tax levy. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
