Denial of refund of Service Tax paid on Banking and Financial Services – The said refund has been rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to correlate the services availed with the exports of goods.
It is evident that there was no requirement of NOC from the Drug Controller in respect of export consignment vide Shipping Bill No. 7099329 dt. 16.04.20 16 filed by the appellant for export of drugs to Liberia.
Cipra Enterprises Vs Commissioner Of Customs- (Export) (CESTAT Delhi) Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that it is not in dispute that the goods are not of Indian origin and hence, the appellant was not entitled to claim the benefit of MEIS. Thus, the goods were found to be mis-declared as the appellant had declared the goods […]
CESTAT Delhi held that order of revoking the license of the Customs Broker is unreasonable and unjustified as there was no violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
CESTAT Mumbai held that once the adjudication has taken place under section 11B of the Central Excise Act there cannot be recovery on claim of ‘erroneous refund’ under section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi with regard to anti-dumping duty on imports provided the relief of modification of the ‘product under consideration’ to ‘Saturated Fatty Alcohol with a carbon chain length of C12, C14, C16 and C18.
CESTAT Delhi held that Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to issue the notice under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, order passed thereon deserved to be set aside.
NIIT Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Transitional provision of Section 142(3) of CGST Act provides that every claim of refund filed by the person after the appointed day (30.06.2017) for refund of any amount of Cenvat credit/duty/tax/interest or any other amount paid under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the […]
In the instant case no evidence has been produced by the revenue to hold that the amount collected by the appellant is exclusive of service tax or it has been separately collected by the appellant. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the department’s stand that benefit of Section 67(2) could not be extended.
Dabur India Limited Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal No. E/10573/2015 is filed by appellant – M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-1) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-014-14-15 dated 30.12.2014 and Appeal No. E/10574/2015 is filed by appellants-M/s. Dabur India Limited (Unit-2) against Order-in-Original No. VAP-EXCUS-000-COM-015-14-15 dated 30.12.2014. The issue in both these appeals is common. Therefore, […]
