Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs M/s. Omya & Company (CESTAT Delhi) SAD is applicable at the time of import by way of an equitable levy in lieu of sales tax, so as to protect the domestic industry. Further, the Customs Tariff Act itself provides for refund of SAD on re-sale of the goods. The […]
The appellant has paid a certain amount of customs duty. Thereafter, the appellant has sought to create an asset in the shape of ‘receivables’ so as to not pass the effect of payment of duty to the profit and loss account. To nullify the effect of the entry ‘receivables’, it has created a parallel entry exactly opposite to the receivables in its ledger as ‘provisions’.
The appellants are public sector undertakings established by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for distribution of electricity. The issue is whether service tax can be levied on liquidated damages received by the appellants from the other parties who failed to perform as per the contracts.
M/s Sim Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) Mismatch of description of goods in the import document and subsequent sale invoices that form the sole ground of rejection of refund claim of 4% SAD by the refund sanctioning authority that was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is assailed in this appeal. […]
Kumaka Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that there is no dispute on the facts that entire stock of product “Ethyl Alcohol” manufactured in one unit was transferred to its sister unit under Invoices on payment of excise duty. The sister unit had taken credit of duty paid and Captively used the said […]
KEC International Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) From a plain reading of the provisions of Section 11(1) of Central Excise Act, I find that the Central Excise Officer is empowered to adjust only the unpaid adjudicated dues. As Section 11(1) also empowers the Central Excise Officer to recover the dues, even by way of attachment […]
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CESTAT Mumbai) Department urged a new ground, which was not even part of the allegations contained in the show cause notice nor part of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), that the definition of input contains an exclusion clause which excludes from the ambit of inputs all goods […]
Raaga Associates Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CE & ST (CESTAT Chandigarh) The appellant has entered into contact with Syntech (HK) Technology Ltd. Hongkong (STLH) in order to short list states for launching Gionee mobile phones and make arrangement for advertisement for this. Further, the appellant undertook to set up STLH office in India, to […]
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant’s factory is admittedly huge existing petroleum industry and working for decades. The ECIS service was used for expansion, renovation and modernization of overall existing petroleum plant. As per inclusion clause of the definition the services relating to modernization, renovation is an admissible input service. In […]
India Gelatine & Chemicals Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the instant case there is no finalization of Provisional assessment and there is no challenge to any such assessment, in these circumstances the refund would not be governed by provisions of Rule 9 B. The appellant has claimed that the lower authorities have […]
