Held that longer period of limitation cannot be invoked on the ground that no specific instance of suppression of facts was proved against the assessee.
Currency was attempted to the exported and was brought within the limits of customs area contrary to the restrictions and prohibitions imposed by the Customs Act or any other law for time being in force, is liable for confiscation.
Taxable category Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services could only cover pure service contracts within its fold.
Visa Resources India Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Kolkata) As per clause (f) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, an invoice issued by a provider of input service is a valid document for availment of Cenvat credit. In the present case of the Appellant, the heading of the document as seen from […]
Diamond Industries (SBD) Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the controversy at hand narrows down to the question whether the transaction value of the vessel is to be price mentioned in the original MOA or the reduced price indicated in the addendum. We are of the opinion that in light of the […]
issue involved in present case is that whether appellant’s goods imported and supplied as a B&D spares of Interceptor Boats to Cost Guard, Government of India is eligible for exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Cust (Sr. No. 460 or 469A).
In spite of admission on behalf of the importer, Revenue is required to satisfy requirements prescribed under Section 14 of Customs Act read with Customs Valuation Rules before any enhancement of valuation.
No dispute about illicit transaction of smuggling of old bars. So Commissioner (A) has rightly upheld absolute confiscation of gold bars.
Appellant entitled to get cash refund against CENVAT Credit available to its credit during pre GST regime under Section 142(3) of CGST Act
CESTAT hold that the credit on GTA services from the place of removal upto 1.4.2008 was rightly admissible to the Appellant.
