Marina Enterprises Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly the appellant have sold the goods in India after importing and have paid sales tax on the said goods. Admittedly, they are registered with the Sales Tax Department having TIN number and have charged sales tax in their sales […]
Refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no longer available under the GST regime, which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30.06.2017. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act.
CESTAT finds that in the present case the Revenue has raised the Service tax demand merely on the ground of investigation conducted by the Income Tax Authorities. We find that demand cannot be raised merely on the basis of assessment made by the Income Tax Authorities.
Jhoola Refineries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Allahabad) Undisputedly, the bills of entry in this case were not assessed by the officers of DRI but by the officers of the Custom house. Only that officer who has assessed the Bills of Entry in the first place or his successor in office was ‘the […]
Elegant Developers Vs The Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) It is observed that original Adjudicating Authority has awarded interest at the rate of five per cent. The said rate is the lowest rate in the amended Section 35FF. The amount in question is not an amount of duty but was an amount paid […]
Scot Innovations Wires & Cables Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods, Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in UoI vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) =2008 (10) STR 101 (Kar.) has held that in the absence of any express prohibitory provisions, unutilised credit […]
Linkwell Telesystems Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The first question to be answered in this case is if some credit has been taken and thereafter reversed as has been done by the Appellant in this case with respect to part of the credit, does it amount to not taking a credit […]
Jai Mateshwaari Steels Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST- Dehradun (CESTAT Delhi) Section 142(3) of CGST Act, provides that after the appointed day (30th June 2017) every claim for refund of any duty, tax, interest, etc., under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the existing law and any amount […]
Benefit of extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue in the present matters, there being no element of fraud, mis-statement or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant.
In the present case, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para XXII,XXIII, II, XII, XXXVIII mentioned in the part (D) of discussion and finding of impugned OIA cannot be regarded as amounting to a remand.
