Charanjit Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (Port) (CESTAT Kolkata) The allegations are made that Appellant had actively participated in the operations regarding fraudulent import of the said cars and undertook the clearance of the cars from Kolkata port, where the said car was cleared as per the declaration. There was no mis-declaration at all as […]
AIC Iron Industries Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) The first issue involved in this case is whether the Appellant had availed irregular CENVAT Credit as arrived by the Department holding that it was paper transaction without receipt of raw materials. Second issue is whether under the circumstances and the facts […]
Refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules also being a refund under section 11B would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 11BB and interest is payable in case of delay in sanctioning the refund under Rule 5
Read about the CESTAT decision in the case of Globus Infocomm Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), where the plea for change of classification was accepted. The order directs the re-examination of classification, duty demands, mis-declaration allegations, and penalties.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty passed on via supplementary invoice is eligible for cenvat credit as it is not due to reason of any suppression of fact, fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement, etc and hence not barred by provisions of Rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT Mumbai held that insurance premium paid for group insurance to cover employees opting for Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) amounts to input service and accordingly cenvat credit available under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Facts- The appellant, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, manufacturer of […]
Admittedly the appellant’s product is not in conformation to BIS standard as specified in notification. They have not obtained any ISI certificate. Therefore, exemption of SSI notification 08/2003-CE as amended, is not admissible to appellant
B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant manufactures silos for storage of food grains. Custom made silos based on purchase orders placed by customers. It classified under chapter heading 84379090. Revenue contended it is a “prefabricated building” falling under chapter heading 94060099. Show cause notices were issued and […]
CESTAT Delhi held that as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Value of Imported goods) 2007 the value shall be the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. If such a value is not found, then as per Rule 5 the value shall then be the value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Only if neither is available, Rules 7 can be resorted to.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the office memorandum for reconsideration of recommendation made by designated authority for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
