It is a settled legal position that charge of clandestine clearance of goods is a serious charge & cannot be made on presumptions & assumptions
Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs Pankaj Electronics (CESTAT Chennai) Once the goods have been released after inspection by authorized Chartered Engineer, as has been noted by the Hon’ble High Court, there cannot be any contrary view possible in the present appeal. Ten years down the time line after release of the goods per direction of […]
Held that service provider is entitled for refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when output service is exported. The said rule 5 doesn’t stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund.
Held that the pouches of Maha Pasand Jarda Scented Tobacco describes the product as chewing tobacco and in Trade Parlance also it is known as Chewing Tobacco only. Hence, the same is classified as chewing tobacco and not jarda scented tobacco
Sky Airways Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Customs Duty Paid Voluntarily During Investigation cannot be claimed as refund when CESTAT remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in the matter of Sky Airways v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi [Final Order […]
Mehta Metal Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant assessee who is operating under ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’ is entitled pro-rata abatement/refund of duty for the period during which the machine admittedly was inoperative. CESTAT held that there is no dispute with regard […]
Whether HR Sheets/ Coils & welding electrodes which are used for lining plant & in its maintenance qualify as inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules
CESTAT held that Axe Brand Universal Oil classifiable under Chapter 30 as it is similar to Amrutanjan, Vicks, Tiger Balm which were held to be classifiable under Chapter 30 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise – 1995 (77) ELT 500 (SC).
When there is no suppression of facts or mis-declaration, extended period is not invokable and the demand has to be held to be barred by time.
CESTAT held that denial of credit alleging that invoices mention the name of the original importer is too technical and cannot be accepted.
