Short issue involved in the present case for determination is as to whether appellant could suo motu take credit reversed during litigation
Manufacture requires that a new distinct marketable goods should be produced.So long as a new and distinct commodity known to the market is produced, the process amounts to manufacture and not otherwise.
In case the goods are lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accidents during handling or storage in the store room or other approved premises the duty cannot be demanded.
Only that amount can be appropriated which is actually demanded and confirmed by the authority as legitimate duty or dues.
Enhancement of value of imported goods based on NIDB data and circular issued by DGOV without rejecting declared value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 is not proper.
Benefit of CVD exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 cannot be denied if condition is such that it is practically impossible to satisfy condition.
A manufacturer of finished goods is allowed the benefit of availment of CENVAT Credit on any inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate goods, processed by way of job work, availing the benefit of exemption as contained in MF, DR Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, and received by them for use in or in relation to, the manufacture of final product.
No service tax can be levied on the amount collected towards liquidated damages or penalty for breach of any of the terms of the contract.
ARS International Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a holder of Customs Broker license issued by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and is also transacting business at Bengaluru, Chennai, Mumbai and New Delhi. As per the investigation report dated 23.7.2020, a specific intelligence was received by […]
Whether refund can be rejected without putting the appellant on notice for the ground on which refund was rejected. Insofar as the rejection of refund of Rs.13,77,971/- is concerned, the appellant were not issued with a show cause notice for the ground on which the same was rejected. The appellant did not get opportunity to present their case
