Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro Limited, wherein the amount was deposited during the stage of investigation/audit, this Tribunal have held that on being successful in appeal, interest is allowable under Section 35FF from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Further, […]
Girish Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) On facts, the role of appellant was only to arrange meeting between Devi Das and Habib-uz-Zaman and the appellant neither filed the bill of entry or was involved in clearance of goods. Any action on the part of appellant much before the import of goods could […]
Pegasus Pharmaco India Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) a) Balaji has not commenced commercial production prior to the cut-off date of 31.3.2010 even though a single invoice was issued and therefore, it was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification nor has it claimed it until a […]
Held that duty demand, alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of chewing tobacco, on the basis of assumption and presumption is not permissible
Interest on delayed refund of amount would continue to be governed by the unamended provisions of section 35FF as the amended provisions of section 35F would not apply if stay applications and appeals were pending before the Tribunal prior to 06.08.2014.
Whether, on finalization of provisional assessment, the Respondent was entitled to deduction of discounts known at the time of clearance of goods from the depot but quantified later on and Whether request for provisional assessment has rightly been rejected?
Held that mandatory deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act cannot be made by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under CGST Act.
S.K. Kanjilal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration) (CESTAT Kolkata) When the Revenue alleges violation, connivance, knowledge and intent, it is for the Revenue to justify its allegations by furnishing supporting documents and it cannot ask the Appellant to disprove its allegations. From the records, we do not find answers to the appellant’s contention […]
Held that the process of cleaning of waste oil to yield reclaimed fuel oil does not amount to manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not liable to duty.
National Building Construction Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) Since the scope of contract included supply of goods, the same cannot be classified under the above service category of Commercial or Industrial Construction but under ‘Works Contract service’ which classification has not been invoked in the SCN proceedings. FULL TEXT OF THE […]
