DRI officers have not been entrusted the functions under the Customs Act by the Government under section 6 and hence cannot perform such functions. SCN in this case was not issued by ‘the proper officer‘, i.e., the officer who had assessed the Bills of Entry in the first place.
Held that section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Antidumping Duty is to be construed as Customs duty and therefore in view of the amendment that was carried out in 2009 all the provisions of Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder are squarely applicable to Antidumping Duty and as such in case of warehoused goods duty applicable as on the date of clearance from warehouse is to be recovered in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we find that Ld. Commissioner has correctly held that Antidumping Duty is payable by the appellants.
Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) In this case department opined that the appellant manufactured gold coins bearing a brand name of others and thus gold manufactured by them attract 1% duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200. The appellants in the […]
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) (CESTAT Chennai) The issue involved the present case is that whether the Antenna for base station imported by the appellant is classifiable as parts of base station under CTH 85177090 as claimed by the appellant or as machine/equipment for the reception, transmission and conversion of […]
Perfect Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (AIR) (CESTAT Chennai) In the present case, the adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of Rs.2 lakhs. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the appellant that the goods were intended to be supplied to another customer of another country has allowed the request for re-export. […]
Mindtree Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) It was not intention of the Government to tax software services as information technology services including ‘Software Maintenance Services’ were excluded from ‘Business Auxiliary Services’; the explanation added in the definition of ‘Goods’ to include computer services if can only be prospective from 1.6.2007 and the […]
Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Present appeal has been filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No. 215/2021 dated 25th June, 2021. The facts relevant for the impugned appeal are as follows:- That M/s. Rambagh Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the appellant are engaged in providing different services relating to hotel […]
Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST Vs Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) Under rule 4(1) of the Credit Rules, CENVAT credit of inputs to be used in the manufacture of final product is allowable to the manufacturer only on receipt of the goods along with invoices in the factory of manufacturer. Rule 4(5) […]
G.S. Pharmabutors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General (CESTAT Delhi) There is no dispute that the appellant had undertaken the peripheral processes. Whether any other process or processes, apart from peripheral processes, had been undertaken by the appellant so as to amount to manufacture contemplated in section 2(f) of the Excise Act would have to […]
Rajcomp Info Service Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) In this case Liquidated damages, has been held to be susceptible to service tax under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act by the Commissioner as an amount received for tolerating an act. According to the appellant, the liquidated damages recovered on account of breach or non-performance of […]
