Variety Lumbers Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The refund claim was admittedly not filed within the period of one year as prescribed in paragraph 2 of clause C of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 and the same stands filed within a period of one year from the date of order of Hon’ble […]
CENVAT credit cannot be denied on Chartered Accountant services for mere mention of Individual name after company name and Mere allegation in SCN cannot be a ground to deny Credit on bank charges
ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central GST (CESTAT Allahabad) The issue relates to inclusion of the amount collected by the appellant as Interest Free Maintenance Security (IFMS). Revenue’s contention is that the said collected amount would fall under the category of ‘Management Maintenance and Repair Services’ and would be liable to service tax separately. […]
Duty could not be demanded on the ground that there was absence of corroborative evidence on allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods as ,the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods by the Appellant made in the Show Cause Notice, was merely on assumption and presumption, without sufficient material evidence corroborating the said allegations.
CESTAT Mumbai held that there are no allegations/ evidence that demonstrate that the customs broker didnt demonstrate speed and efficiency in respect of the impugned goods and hence there is no contravention of regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018
CESTAT held that the Service Tax is not liable to be paid on the amount collected from the customer as interest free security deposit against trading of shares which is subsequently refunded without utilization.
The Hon’ble CESTAT revoking the Customs Brokers licences of the appellants forfeiting their security deposits and further imposing penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained as Appellants have provided their best efforts to establish the genuinety of exporters and they have relied upon the documents which have been issued by Government to the exporters.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claims rejected as time-barred considering the date of re-submission of refund claim as the date of filing of refund claim and ignoring the date on which the initial/ original refund claim was filed is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that amount deposited prior to adjudication but not held as payable under SVLDR Scheme is liable to be refunded back to the appellant.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty not leviable on scrap which is neither generated from the manufacturing nor generated from the cenvatable input or capital goods.
