Reliance Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) The two issues that have been referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal are, therefore, answered in following manner: (i) The answer to the first issue would be: a. The Bombay High Court in Coca Cola India and Ultratech Cement has settled […]
Jethanand Rohra Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT held that As the goods are lying under seizure and subsequent confiscation by the Customs Department for more than two years, for no fault of the appellant, grant of waiver of detention and demurrage charges is appropriate and direct that the proper certificate shall be issued […]
C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot Vs Sanghi Industries Ltd (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Undisputedly, the guesthouse is used for operations of the factory. Nothing is available on record to show that guesthouse is used for any other purpose. In view of this fact, since guesthouse used for operations of factory which has direct nexus with factory which produces excisable […]
Raychem RPG Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) We are not in agreement with the findings recorded by the Commissioner on the issue of limitation. Undisputedly all the facts were in the knowledge of the revenue and in fact have been corresponded between the revenue and appellant since 1993. For the clearance of […]
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellant had imported certain goods under Advance Authorization Scheme vide various licenses. As the Advance Authorization expired, the appellants were unable to fulfill their export obligation as stipulated in these licenses. They have paid appropriate duty and interest on the quantity […]
CESTAT held that the assistance rendered by the appellants to their member farmers in auctioning their agricultural produce does not tantamount to rendering any service classifiable under ‘Auctioneers’ Service’.
Mere entries in third parties’ records of Transporters and brokers cannot be basis for clandestine removal. It is settled law that documents recovered from a third party can be used against the manufacturer to prove clandestine removal only when these are supported with corroborative evidences.
Brose India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Denial to avail CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid during GST regime under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on import of services by the Appellant manufacturing company and its confirmation by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune vide above referred […]
Gold bar with foreign marking, source of which is not explained, is liable for absolute confiscation since the same would amount to the importation of a prohibited goods.
Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Issue of leviability of Service tax on penalty, liquidated damages, compensation, forfeiture amounts, cancellation charges etc. stands settled by various pronouncements wherein it has consistently been held that the said amounts recovered as charges for breach or non-compliance of contractual terms […]
