Lonsen Kiri Chemical Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case, the assessee being 100% EOU, imported goods exempted under Notification No. 50/2003-Cus. There is no dispute about the intention of the said goods to be used in the manufacture of final product in the 100% EOU unit […]
Yashraj Containeurs Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Revenue sought to include the TCS collected by the appellant from the buyer of scrap in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty. The said TCS is collected and deposited to the income tax department in terms of Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961. From […]
Astral Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case as given above the product imported by the appellant consisted of pre-dominantly of Butadiene which is an olefin therefore, in terms of Chapter note 4 to chapter 39 the product is correctly classifiable under CTH 390290000. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not […]
Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the sanctioning authority appropriated the demand of Rs.4,50,572/-from the sanctioned rebate claim, the said appropriated amount is towards penalty and interest in a demand case whereas, the appellant had deposited the entire duty amount. When the appropriation was done against the demand […]
Matter of classification is complex. According, held that there is no scope for indicting the individuals in these proceedings for deliberate misdeclaration. Penalty not imposed as the role of the individuals in the misdeclaration of stores and bunkers is not evident in the impugned order.
Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Private Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) During the course of hearing learned consultant for the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by the appellants were in time as enunciated by the larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India […]
Explore the case of ITCO Industries Ltd. vs. GST Commissioner, CESTAT Chennai’s verdict on GST refund denial, advance authorizations, and compliance issues. Get insights into the legal analysis and its implications.
CESTAT set aside the Ex-parte order passed by the Revenue Department confirming the demand of Service tax along with interest and penalty on the cleaning services in respect of non-commercial building or premises.
Framing laws is the sovereign right of the state and this is not subservient to any contract between two businesses. Needless to say that in the case of any conflict between a contract and the law, the latter prevails.
CESTAT Delhi ruling in Takata India Pvt. Ltd. case clarifies that a general provision for slow-moving inventory, not written off, does not attract Cenvat Credit Rules. Detailed analysis and implications.
