R M Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present case is that whether the goods in question i.e. bhusi/ bhuki of pulses / pulses waste cleared from Kandla SEZ is classifiable under Chapter heading 07139099 or 11061000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and consequently whether the appellant is […]
HIL Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In this case though initially the appellant have taken the cenvat credit on the common input service which were used for manufacture of dutiable goods as well in relation to exempted service i.e. trading activity, however, on pointing out by the department, the appellant have calculated the […]
Veer Enterprise Vs C.C.-Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find the goods have been cleared and duty discharged as per the Tariff Heading proposed by the department. The Certificate of Chartered Engineer produced by the party is actually deficient, as it has been obtained behind the back of Customs Officials and does not show the time and […]
Tansi Pump Unit Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellants are registered as manufacturer of hand-pumps, EB line material, Benches, Desks etc. They availed small scale exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 and after crossing the exemption limit were clearing the products on payment of duty. Appellant […]
Velji P & Sons Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The case of the department is that the appellant M/s. Rawmin Mining and Industries Pvt. Ltd. is 100% export oriented unit has cleared 444903.645 MTs of their final product namely Beneficiated Bauxite and stored at the plot allotted to their custom house agent and shipping […]
S. Vaidya and Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed three refund claims for refund of SAD amount of Rs.10,97,996/-. After scrutinizing the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that the sales invoices were not endorsed with the mandatory declaration that “no cenvat credit can be […]
Refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original notification no.102/2007-Customs. It was also held that period of limitation for first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification.
Whether appellants liable to pay service tax on consideration received for construction services which are composite in nature including both supply of materials and provision of services for the period prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT held that when Tribunal given a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to appellant, Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated demand after granting benefit.
CESTAT held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007
