CESTAT restore the matter to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who shall pass a speaking order as per law after granting reasonable opportunities to the appellant and since the matter pertains to an earlier period which has travelled twice before this forum, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass a de novo order within a time-frame of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order by the respective Commissionerate.
CESTAT Chennai held that conditions as prescribed under Board’s Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 is duly complied and accordingly conversion from free shipping bills to Advance Authorization shipping bills needs to be allowed.
Chhaya Mahalley Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) The issue as to was whether coal transported from pitheads of the mines to the railway sidings would fall within the taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act was examined by the Supreme Court in Singh Transporters. The Supreme […]
Universal Bituminous Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commr. of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) A Show Cause Notice dated 04/04/2019 was issued demanding an amount of Rs. 67,505/- (i.e 6% of 10% of traded goods) on traded items to the tune of Rs.1,12,50,819/- during the Financial Year 2013-14 2.2. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand […]
P. Natesan & Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of service tax as per section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 is available only if the contract is entered prior to 01.03.2015. Here, contract is entered on 19.03.2015 and hence exemption not available. Facts- The appellant […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that main allegation of manipulation of final boiling point in the test report vis-à-vis- classification of product thereof not clarified in the order Hence impugned order cannot be sustained as all the charges flow from fundamental charge of manipulating test report.
CESTAT Chennai held refund claim of service tax paid by mistake eligible as Chartered Accountant certificate stated that the statutory records are examined and the incidence of duty has not been passed on, accordingly doctrine of unjust enrichment doesn’t apply.
The Timberland Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (Appeals) (CESTAT Chennai) In paragraph-7 of the impugned order, the first appellate authority has clearly recorded that the appellant did not submit the Country of Origin Certificate as prescribed, either during the assessment stage or appellate stage. Against this, the learned Consultant would contend that the Bill […]
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty cannot be levied in absence of evidence proving that semi-finished products is sent to the hired premises with mala fide intention of the appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposing late fee charges on filing of new Bill of Entry, as old Bill of Entry got purged and erased in ICEGATE, is unsustainable in law.
