MSG Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) provisions of Section 27 A, which provides that, “ where a refund is not granted within three months from the date of receipt of the application, that shall be paid to the applicant with interest at such rate, as notified, on such duty, from the date immediately […]
No limitation is applicable for refund in the facts and circumstances of the present case, due to the amount lying with the Revenue having the nature of revenue deposit.
Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the credit availed by the appellant-bank on the Service Tax paid on the basis of the premium paid to DICGC for insuring deposits is eligible for CENVAT Credit or not. The said issue […]
Goods are not Digital Inkjet Printers or that the goods are not capable of being connected to ADP or network and therefore is not classifiable under 8443 32 50 is against clarification given by CBIC
Section 11 – Power of adjustment cannot be exercised for demand of tax/interest/penalty which is sub judice by Central Excise officers.
CESTAT held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture by the job worker is not included in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
Merely because a note was given in the balance sheet of the appellant company that the service recipient’s company is an Associates Company of the appellant does not alter the legal status of independent entity of both the companies.
Custom brokers are required to conduct all possible enquiries through independent reliable sources/ documents to verify the credentials of the clients. No such effort made by the appellant proves that they have failed to observe due diligence in this regard.
When the unit was de-bonded and no dues certificate was issued to the assessee, it was the duty of the officer, who gave no dues certificate to verify the contents whether any dues liability was pending against the assessee or he had correctly declared the true facts for de-bonding of unit. When the concerned officer had de-bonded the unit along with no dues certificate, allegation of suppression could not be alleged against assessee in this case.
Rakesh Kumar Tibra Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) In view of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 3.5.2019, in the case of Lucky Tobacco Co. Ltd. and Others, arising from the same impugned order-in-original, we find that the cause of action against these appellants also does not survive. In this view of […]
