CESTAT Delhi held that mere possession of foreign marking on gold without any corroborative evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it is smuggled gold.
Since there was failure on the part of revenue to collect any evidence in relation to either procurement of raw materials by the appellant or production of huge quantity of final goods alleged as removed clandestinely to sustain the charge of clandestine removal hence, the impugned demand was not sustainable for lack of evidences.
CESTAT observed that the products in question would be classifiable under CTH 85177090 and not CTH 85176290 based on HSN and the Departmental Circular could not run contrary to the Judicial Pronouncements.
Marudhar Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Short issue required to be decided in this matter is as to whether such reversal of credit, either by payment of 6% in terms of Rule 6 or by debiting the same from the Cenvat credit account, would result to satisfying the condition of notification No. […]
Beterman Engineering Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) Appellant has all along taken the view that transport service is not taxable service as it was not provided by the goods transport agency, but by goods transport operator and/or individual truck owners namely an individual either owning or operating. This plea has […]
Metadin Mali Vs C.S.T. Service Tax Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We have carefully gone through the relevant contract entered into by Appellant with M/s Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd and find that M/s. Pino has entered into agreement with the appellant for packing and salvaging activities. The appellant was paid for carrying out such activities on […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as there was no manufacture of fresh goods there cannot be a duty demand under rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 merely for reason of clearance after 6 months.
Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) With regard to cenvat credit of input service availed for manufacture of exempted goods, namely, Ethyl Alcohol, the only argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that they had availed credit by inadvertent mistake. The said mistake would not have […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs Pidilite Industries Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) It is seen that the first appellate authority has interpreted the time limit in section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 according to the letter of the law which mandates liability of interest for any delay in sanction of refund beyond three months from date of claim. […]
Prasad Explosive & Chemicals Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.43/RAN/2018 dated 01.02.2018 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi. 2.1 The facts in brief are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of “Emulsion […]
