Integral Coach Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of railway coaches and are registered with the Central Excise Department. On specific intelligence that they were clearing railway coaches without payment of duty, the officers of the Preventive Unit […]
The issue is whether the respondent is eligible to avail credit on input services on freight charges and CHA services availed upto the port for export of goods.
CESTAT held that activity of treatment of effluent water is exempt from Service Tax under Notification No. 08/2017-S.T. dated 20.02.2017
Sunil Garg Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal is filed against penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the appellant as well as the third party. Therefore, these statements cannot […]
CESTAT held that respondent are entitle for the cenvat credit on the service of Repair & Maintenance during warranty period
Leading Point Powertronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Delhi South (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of CESTAT Delhi in Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner, CGST, Noida 2022 (380) ELT 219 (Tri.-All), held that interest on refund of amount deposited during investigation or deposited during pendency of appeal is allowable under Section 35EE of the […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that ship imported for breaking purpose contains fuel and oil and accordingly they are by-product that are inevitably required to be removed from the ship. Hence, CENVAT Credit of the same duly available.
Refund claim seeking refund of the excess additional duty of customs paid during the period 26.03.2015 to 22.06.2015 was rightly sanctioned as there was no error on the part of either the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in sanctioning the refund without considering the limitation as both authorities were bound by the order of the Delhi High Court.
Maa Lilori Bhander Vs Commr. of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Kolkata) CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant duly produced documentary evidences like GST invoice, E-way bill and consignment notes. Accordingly, once Appellant has provided documentary evidence, the burden of proving that the goods are of a foreign origin falls on the Department. Facts- In the present case […]
CESTAT Chennai held that as transfer of technical knowhow not a condition for sale of capital goods, hence, technical knowhow fee not to be included in the assessable value of imported goods.
