CESTAT held that the Service Tax is not liable to be paid on the amount collected from the customer as interest free security deposit against trading of shares which is subsequently refunded without utilization.
The Hon’ble CESTAT revoking the Customs Brokers licences of the appellants forfeiting their security deposits and further imposing penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained as Appellants have provided their best efforts to establish the genuinety of exporters and they have relied upon the documents which have been issued by Government to the exporters.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claims rejected as time-barred considering the date of re-submission of refund claim as the date of filing of refund claim and ignoring the date on which the initial/ original refund claim was filed is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that amount deposited prior to adjudication but not held as payable under SVLDR Scheme is liable to be refunded back to the appellant.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty not leviable on scrap which is neither generated from the manufacturing nor generated from the cenvatable input or capital goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that the respondent is not contesting the duty demand and penalty and the entire duty and penalty is also paid by the respondent. Then, remanding the matter of re-examining whether the SCN issuing authority is proper or not is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied alleging non-existence of seller as the Appellant being a bonafide purchaser of goods for a price which included the duty element and payment made by cheque and availed CENVAT Credit based on Cenvatable documents.
Shree Keshariyaji Metal Impex Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that as regard the classification of goods that whether the same is Aluminium Scrap or Aluminium Sheet, the assessment was made on the basis of the department’s claim and the appellant have paid the duty. The said assessment was not challenged by the appellant therefore at […]
Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that the Commissioner could not have ordered for cost recovery charges under the provisions of regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of Customs Area Regulations 2009. Accordingly, penalty imposed under regulation 12(8) also not sustainable. Facts- The appellant is a State Government […]
CESTAT ruled that CBEC does not have the power to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.
