CESTAT ruled that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and therefore the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the refund of 4% of Special Additional Duty. Further, held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted.
Suvikram Plastex Pvt Ltd Vs CCT (CESTAT Bengalore) Transition of unutilised Input Tax Credit could be allowed only in respect of taxes and duties which were subsumed in the new GST Law. Admittedly, the three types of Cess involved before us, namely Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education (SHE) Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess were […]
The order of confiscation with an option for redemption fine and penalty for importer not having Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number is invalid as there is no violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC.
Traco Cable Company Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Respondent Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) The first question as to whether the supplementary invoices relate to the date of original clearance or the date on which the supplementary invoice was raised has been decided by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India. Accordingly, interest under Section 11AB […]
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the cost of Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sale Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the […]
Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice. Conclusion– The Supreme Court observed that the […]
CESTAT held that the adjustment of the tax demand from the unutilized cenvat credit lying as on June 30, 2017 can be carried forward to the GST regime by the Assessee.
Show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer. Accordingly, duty demand fails. The proposal for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty cannot be segregated from the duty demand and, therefore, if the duty demand fails as the show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer, the proceedings for confiscation and penalty cannot survive.
imported goods and therefore could not collect further amount against the amended bills of entry presented by the new purchaser cannot be a ground to issue a Show Cause Notice alleging attempt to claim an undue refund.
