ARS International Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a holder of Customs Broker license issued by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and is also transacting business at Bengaluru, Chennai, Mumbai and New Delhi. As per the investigation report dated 23.7.2020, a specific intelligence was received by […]
Whether refund can be rejected without putting the appellant on notice for the ground on which refund was rejected. Insofar as the rejection of refund of Rs.13,77,971/- is concerned, the appellant were not issued with a show cause notice for the ground on which the same was rejected. The appellant did not get opportunity to present their case
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ultra Tech Cement Limited (CESTAT Kolkata) Respondent submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise. He further submits that the impugned order has erroneously invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act on the ground of willful […]
In this case Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Original Authority as it was passed in the violation of principles of natural justice and therefore being not sustainable.
Issue involved in this case is valuation of waste/bye-product and the applicability of cum-duty price for the goods cleared. There is no dispute regarding liability of Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that maintenance of pipelines are not exempted under any notification or provision or circular. Accordingly, the same is taxable under the category of ‘management, maintenance and repair’ services.
CESTAT Chennai held that in absence of foreign marking and any other cogent evidence, onus is on department to prove that the smuggled nature of the goods.
CESTAT Chennai held the benefit of notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 allowable to tipper body as it is not necessary that the goods cleared into DTA have to be identical to the goods exported by the EOU.
CESTAT Chennai held that service of unloading, transportation and stacking of coal from railway wagons to coal yard cannot be classified under the category of ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency’ service.
The appellants had to undertake the transportation of tractors from premises of Punjab Tractors Ltd to their dealers and in the bargain they may appoint drivers for the work. Appellants were required to take all responsibilities on the way.
