Nurture Marketing Pvt. Ltd Vs Commr. of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) Appellant submitted that the commission in respect of volume purchase by the Second Level of distributor for the periods of 2006-07 to 2010-11 earned by the appellant is to the tune of Rs.1,22,46,991/- and the Service Tax on the same was Rs.13,94,933/- and […]
CESTAT Delhi held that Penalty under section 114AA is imposable only if knowingly or intentionally a false declaration, statement or document is made, signed or used. As there are no evidences that appellant knew of the fraud/ forged licences, penalty u/s 114AA cannot be sustained.
CESTAT held that in respect of utilisation of Cenvat credit there is no requirement of one to one correlation and cross utilisation of credit is permissible.
Nai Dunia Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant urges that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant have shared the electricity received from MPEB with Web Dunia, PPPL and others on proportionate (reimbursement) basis. Admittedly, the appellant has not generated electricity. […]
Aurolab Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is whether the refund claim is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. Undisputedly, the appellant has mentioned the duty element in the invoices issued to the buyers. The presumption envisaged in section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 then applies and the […]
Murli Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) It is not disputed that the Resolution Plan for the appellant company was approved by Learned NCLT vide its orders dated 3.7.2019 and 22.7.2019. As per Section 31(1) of I&B Code, once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the […]
Adjudicating authority was supposed to give the details of methodology in stock taking and also allowed the cross-examination of panchas
Samir Transport Company Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case the penalty was imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In connection with fraudulent passing of cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s Accord Industries Limited to M/s Archon Engicon Limited. The fact is not […]
It is very clear that the department has disposed of /sold the goods on the understanding that the first order of the adjudicating authority is the final order. At the same time the department was well aware about the pendency of the appeals before this Tribunal. Therefore the action of the department is clearly in gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence the same cannot be allowed to sustain.
In the present case the payment of anti dumping duty is not due to assessment or reassessment of Bills of entry but merely by a letter from the department, therefore there is nothing in the bills of entry to challenge.
