CESTAT Delhi held that as the goods are not being notified under section 123 of the Act, it is onus on the revenue to establish the smuggled nature of the goods. In absence of any evidence, allegation of smuggled nature unsustainable.
TDK India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata) Regarding Works Contract Service, it has been observed in the impugned order that w.e.f 01.07.2012, vide Notification No. 30/2012-ST, the reverse charge mechanism for Works Contract Service was introduced. I find that this Notification is applicable to individual/partnership firm and Hindu Undivided Family […]
Jaisawal Neco Industries Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved in this appeal is whether the provisions of Rule 3(5)(B) of CCR, 2004 are attracted in case of making a general provision in the books of account for slow moving/non moving inventory, without reducing the value of […]
CESTAT held that condition in Notification No. 12/2003-ST is only production of documentary proof indicating value of the goods and materials supplied. This does not in any manner mean that the goods have to necessarily be supplied under invoices.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the assessment in real sense takes place at the time of ex-bonding of the warehouse goods. Therefore, the effect of rate of duty, any exemption notification prevailing at the time of filing the ex-bond bill of entry shall be applicable and not the one which is applicable at the of in-bonding of the good.
Circular dated 29.4.2011 issued by the Government clarified that the credit in respect of rent a cab service would be available in case the provision of the service was completed before 1.4.2011.
CESTAT Mumbai held that limitation prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 not applicable to refund claims for Service Tax paid under mistake of law.
While quashing an order for compounding of offence, the Revenue held that the amount for the compounding of offence under the GST Act should not exceed the maximum penalty specified in the Act for such offence. Since the demand itself failed on merit and limitation there could not be demand for interest and penalties imposed could not be sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 solely on the basis of the ground that there is no nexus between the input service and the output service exported is untenable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Oil contained in Bunker Tanks in Engine Room of Vessel imported for breaking up is classifiable under CTH 8908 along with such vessel.
