Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Atul Parekh vs. C.C.E. & S.T. case. Penalties under Rule 26 for abetment in fraudulent Cenvat Credit nullified. Case details and analysis.
Explore the case of Tega Industries vs. C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) as CESTAT overturns refund denial. Analysis of Business Support Service, procedural lapses, and distinct identities.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd, stating that credit denial based on photocopies of invoices is a procedural lapse, not a valid reason.
Yara Fertilizers India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Introduction: The case of Yara Fertilizers India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, adjudicated by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai, revolves around the classification dispute of the imported product ‘yaravita zintrac (zinc oxide suspension concentrate).’ The disagreement stems from […]
Dive into the dispute of Acmechem Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai). Explore challenges to value rejection, breaches of natural justice, and a crucial assessment analysis.
Charges of clandestine removal cannot be sustained as the evidences brought into the record by the department are incomplete, inconsistent and not a reliable piece of evidence.
Lonsen Kiri Chemical Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case, the assessee being 100% EOU, imported goods exempted under Notification No. 50/2003-Cus. There is no dispute about the intention of the said goods to be used in the manufacture of final product in the 100% EOU unit […]
Yashraj Containeurs Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Revenue sought to include the TCS collected by the appellant from the buyer of scrap in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty. The said TCS is collected and deposited to the income tax department in terms of Section 206C of Income Tax Act, 1961. From […]
Astral Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case as given above the product imported by the appellant consisted of pre-dominantly of Butadiene which is an olefin therefore, in terms of Chapter note 4 to chapter 39 the product is correctly classifiable under CTH 390290000. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not […]
Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that the sanctioning authority appropriated the demand of Rs.4,50,572/-from the sanctioned rebate claim, the said appropriated amount is towards penalty and interest in a demand case whereas, the appellant had deposited the entire duty amount. When the appropriation was done against the demand […]
