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.
Refund of Service Tax Cenvat credit was denied without issue of any show cause notice. Such an order is not sustainable in law.
Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Chennai) As regards the issue of unjust enrichment, CESTAT find that the appeal has stated that the procedure to be adopted for refund of 4% additional duty of customs is given in Board Circular No. 6/2008- Customs (F. No. 401/104/2007-Cus.III) dated 28.4.2008 and Customs […]
Rule 3(7)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) applies only the duty has been paid at the concessional rate prescribed in Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31/03/2003.
Appellants are not the manufacturer of Aluminium scrap and they have only imported the scrap for manufacture of Aluminium ingots.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held liable for mis-declaration as Bill of Entry (BOE) was filed by the Customs Broker based on the documents given by the importer and there is no evidence brought on record to show that the Customs Broker was aware of the misdeclaration.
CESTAT Chennai held that relevant date of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in case of export of service is the date of realization of the foreign exchange.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejecting exemption benefit and duty demand u/s 28 of Customs Act, 1962 by reassessing ‘cameras’ under general and residual description i.e. ‘others’ under 8525 8090 instead of declared specified classification i.e. 8525 8020 is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that handling of export cargo is excluded from the purview of service tax. The same is not exempted service. In nut-shell, any activity on which no service tax is payable doesn’t make such activity an exempted service.
CESTAT Mumbai held that there is no breach of regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) as the licence is sub-let and two employees of sub-let owner failed to dealt with export consignment.
