CESTAT Chennai held that as duty was paid under protest period of limitation of one year envisaged in section 27(1B) of Customs Act 1962 will not apply even if refund claim made out of a consequence of judgment/ decree/ order.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty for non-payment of service tax not leviable when the assessee has proved reasonable cause for their bona fide belief of non-payment.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the same period excise duty is demanding alleging that activities undertaken by the appellants do amount to manufacture of Prefabricated building i.e. Green House and also service tax on activity of erection and commission of Greenhouse and Polyhouse at site. Accordingly, held that to ascertain the position, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
CESTAT Delhi uphold the order of revocation of registration of the authorized courier and forfeiture of security on account of actively violated the provisions of the act and rules by knowingly filing the bills of entry in the name of wrong consignee and also be mis-declaring the nature of the goods.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Factory in terms of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act includes any number of inputs within the same premises irrespective of the number of Central Excise registrations. Accordingly, CENVAT of such inputs available.
CESTAT Mumbai held that penalty under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be levied only if it is found that the concerned person have dealt with the goods in any manner which they knew are liable to confiscation. Role of co-noticee proved and hence penalty justifiable.
Meghmani Organics Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the duty and interest which were already paid by the appellant on pointing out by the audit. The only limited issue to be decided by me in the given facts and circumstances are that whether the appellant is […]
Chashmita Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant is seeking benefit of Notification No. 20/2003-ST in respect of the service provided by them in respect of AVETCS system. Services provided for AVETCS as follows: “The Automatic Vehicle Entry Tax Collection System (AVETCS) of Commissioner of Transport constitutes electronic weigh bridges, CCTV system, computers, […]
Bajaj Herbals Private Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute that a fire has taken place in the factory of the appellant due to short circuit and the finished goods was destroyed along with other material like packing materials and consumables. It is observed that immediately when the fire took […]
Jay Gurudev Construction Co Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Issue involved is if the appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 15/2004- ST for the period 2005-06 and 2007-08. It is noticed that the benefit has been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce any […]
