Explore legal battle of Prinik Steels (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise in Kolkata. Disputing a Rs.9.27M duty demand based on private records, the article delves into intricate details of case.
CESTAT Delhi held that G-Watch i.e. Smart Watch is classifiable under 8157 6290 and not under CTH 9102 1900. Accordingly, benefit of entry serial no. 955 of notification no. 15/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009 doesn’t apply.
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of benefit of project import regulations and the concessional rate of duty despite clearly taking note of factual position is certainly an error of judgement.
CESTAT Delhi held that the most appropriate classification of canned pineapple slices will be CTH 0804. However, duty demand of extended period set aside as there was confusion in department regarding classification of canned sliced pineapples.
Interest for period after 3 months refund of 19 crores of cenvat credit was allowable after expiry of three months from the date of filing the claim to the date of claim. In the present case refund claim was filed on 27.12.2012 the period of three months will be over on 26.03.2013. They would be entitled to the interest for the period beyond 26 March, 2013 to the date of payment i.e. 21.05.2013, which was about 55 days.
Read the CESTAT Chennai order allowing provisional release of seized polyester coated fabric. Analysis of the case against Commissioner of Customs. Full details.
CESTAT Chennai allows provisional release of gold seized from Sree Venkateshwara Bullion, citing balance of convenience and following principles of natural justice.
CESTAT Chennai rules in favor of United India Insurance Co., allowing Cenvat credit for vehicle repairs despite invoices in vehicle owners’ names. Analysis and implications.
In this analysis of Tehsildar Koil Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Allahabad rules on time-barred appeals, emphasizing the 30-day limit for filing
CESTAT Delhi held that once the goods are cleared for home consumption after examination and assessment, unless there is an evidence to support, demand u/s. 28 invoking extended period of limitation cannot be raised unless there is evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts are proven.
