CESTAT Ahmedabad held that mixing of thermol and the input namely Mixed oil does not alter the nature of the product accordingly the same doesnt amount to manufacture.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of leasing workwear (uniform) to their clients on the conditions mentioned in the agreements with their clients is not taxable under supply of tangible goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that claim of extra payment of tax without any documentary evidence (except arithmetical calculation) is not adjustable and unsustainable in law.
On the plain reading of Rule 11 (3) (i) (ii), it is clear that as per sub-clause (2), the credit shall be lapsed only if the exemption under the Notification is absolute that means in case of conditional Notification the provision of lapsing of credit will not apply.
Wearit Global Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case the appellant has opted for exemption as per the Notification No. 30/2004-CE where the exemption is conditional. As per Rule 11 (3)(ii) CCR, Cenvat Credit balance will lapse only if the product is exempted absolutely under Section 5A of Central Excise Act. But since […]
Patodia Filaments Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 is not an absolute notification but a conditional notification issued under section 5A. The notification has the condition of non availment of cenvat credit. The sub-rule (3) (i) and (ii) of Rule 11 of the […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that offence of money-laundering committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature.
Bharat Hotels Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Demand could be made under Undertaking only when Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) found that use of aircraft was not in accordance with permit granted. Where DGCA had not initiated any proceedings against assessee and in fact had renewed the permit from time to […]
HC held that, procedural lapses cannot be a ground for denying substantive benefits to assessee. Further held that, Show Cause Notice issued before the passing of such order was barred by limitation.
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) on the customs broker alleging mis-declaration of goods is unsustainable as customs broker cannot be expected to have knowledge about the goods in the container as there is no dispute with regard to KYC document of the importer.
