After amendment of section 110(2) it was concluded that no separate notice was necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority had to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months.
Adjudicating Authority was right in in imposing a penalty under the provision of Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 as both the appellants were fully aware that M/s B Pvt. Ltd. was importing complete Segway electrically operated product in CKD condition by mis-declaring the same as CKD parts of components such as Power unit, transmission kit, etc.
High Court of Judicature at Madras has held that the refund of input Cenvat credit cannot be denied just because premises was unregistered, in the case of Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Vs. BNP Paribas Sundaram Global Securities, in CMA No. 57 of 2018 dated 18.01.2018. Therefore, the denial of refund for the reasons of a premises being unregistered cannot sustain and the same is set aside.
T.M. Tyres Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Butyl rubber inner tubes and such product by itself is separately identifiable and is a distinct Marketable product. It cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant […]
The issues involved in this Appeal is whether GTA service is entitle as an input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 even after 1.4.2008 on FOR sales i.e. delivery upto the factory gate of the customers, which, according to Revenue, was beyond the place of removal?
Exotica Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) if Designated Committee has not issued SVLDRS 3 within 30 days it is a case of deemed discharge under SVLDRS- In that circumstances, SVLDRS-3 form has not been issued to the appellant, therefore, the designated authority was duty bound to […]
Indo Rubber and Plastic Works Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that in absence of any condition precedent, the expenditure by the importer-appellant on advertisement and sales promotion incurred on its own account and not for discharge for any obligation of the seller (foreign exporter) under the terms of the sale, […]
Deposit Insurance Contract is also a general insurance contract as defined in law and merely because they are statutorily prescribed, they do not cease to be contract of insurance. The insurer is the Corporation, the insured are the banks and the beneficiary is the depositor(s)
Aureole Atelier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) Section 14 of the Customs Act provides that for the purpose of valuation the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, i.e. to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India […]
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Chennai) Revenue is of the opinion that only if the loan is in the form of Indian rupee and interest is earned on that, then alone under the provisions of Valuation Rules or Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 interest is not to be […]
