Murli Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) It is not disputed that the Resolution Plan for the appellant company was approved by Learned NCLT vide its orders dated 3.7.2019 and 22.7.2019. As per Section 31(1) of I&B Code, once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the […]
Adjudicating authority was supposed to give the details of methodology in stock taking and also allowed the cross-examination of panchas
Samir Transport Company Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case the penalty was imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In connection with fraudulent passing of cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s Accord Industries Limited to M/s Archon Engicon Limited. The fact is not […]
It is very clear that the department has disposed of /sold the goods on the understanding that the first order of the adjudicating authority is the final order. At the same time the department was well aware about the pendency of the appeals before this Tribunal. Therefore the action of the department is clearly in gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence the same cannot be allowed to sustain.
In the present case the payment of anti dumping duty is not due to assessment or reassessment of Bills of entry but merely by a letter from the department, therefore there is nothing in the bills of entry to challenge.
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabed) The limited issue to be decided in the present case is that when the appellant were granted the refund of excess reversal of cenvat credit whether they are entitled for the interest for the delayed sanction of refund in terms of Section 11 BB. I find […]
Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that if the sale of goods is on FOR, freight is included in assessable value on which excise duty was paid and the freight was not separately charged to the customer of the goods, the assessee is entitled for the Cenvat Credit. […]
CESTAT Delhi held that sprinklers are not included in the description of goods contained at Serial No. 325 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 chargeable to 18%, whereas, serial No. 195B of the notification does not restrict the sprinklers to any category and hence benefit of lower IGST rate of 12% available to fire sprinklers.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the activities of renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods cannot be classified under infrastructural support service and since the said services were taxable after the relevant period. Demand of service tax not sustainable for earlier period.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ordered provisional release of perishable goods i.e. dry dates holding that in case of perishable goods provisional release of the goods should be allowed expeditiously.
