CESTAT held that the revaluation of the goods which are not subjected to BIS specifications was made in arbitrary manner and was not adhere to the principles of natural justice.
CESTAT held that Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) agent service is admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Refusal of SAD to the Appellant-importer by the Refund Sanctioning Authority that has received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round of litigation is assailed in this appeal. The gist of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is that goods imported and goods […]
CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of PLA is only advance not duty therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.
Shobha Plastics Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Principal Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad vide impugned order has imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act upon the appellants Jayesh Mehta and Harshad Vadodaria on the ground that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer in importing the goods by way […]
CESTAT held that assessee is not liable for payment of either excise duty or cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on empty packaging material of cenvatable input.
Held that buyer’s premises cannot, in law, be a place of removal under Section 4. Demand duty thereon is unsustainable in law
CENVAT credit is available on the amount of service tax paid for the services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellant for fulfilling the warranty obligations of the appellant.
Leather Sellers Vs Commissioner of Customs And Excise, Patparganj (CESTAT Delhi) The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer-exporter of leather goods. They had re-imported a consignment of goods, which were earlier exported for the purpose of repair etc. and thereafter, reexport. For such re-import, the appellant had filed Bill of Entry dated […]
Sanjeev Jindal Vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The finding recorded in the order is that exemption under a notification that granted area based exemption was wrongly obtained by the Company and its Directors. It is for this reason that apart from denying the exemption claimed by the Company, penalty was also imposed […]
