Rolex Watch Company Private Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) On perusal of the contract, it is seen that there are two obligations that devolve on the appellant, viz, promotion and marketing of Rolex watches in India and undertaking repairs/replacement during the warranty period for which neither the customer nor the […]
The Vardhman Developers Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) We take notice that service tax law was revamped w.e.f. 01.07.2012 by bringing in various changes. We also take notice of the TRU/CBEC letter dt. 20.02.2010 regarding the scope of valuation of taxable amount in respect of residential complex service, which was introduced […]
Bengal Beverages Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Aerated water and Fruit based drinks (in short ‘final products’) classifiable under Chapter- 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on payment of […]
Luit Developers Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise it is trite law that figures of Form 26AS are not to be used for determining Service Tax liability unless there is proof to show that it was on account of any taxable service and relies on the order of the Tribunal in Kush […]
Voxco Pigments And Chemicals Pvt Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT AHMEDABAD) There is no dispute that the appellant had filed the refund claim on 01/06/2017 for an amount of Rs. 12,25,023/-. Thereafter, on the audit query, the appellant had decided to reduce the refund claim and, therefore, withdrew the earlier claimed and thereafter claim […]
Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT held that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for making amendment to the Bill of Entry. As per the same, the Bill of Entry could have been modified by the Revenue authorities to correct the clerical error made by the appellant under self-assessment […]
Bird Audio Electronics Vs Commissioner of CGS (CESTAT Delhi) CBEC Circular No.423/56/98-CX dated 22.09.1998 also stresses the need for concerned Departments to issue timely demands through SCN. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Pricol Ltd. reported as 2015 (320) ELT 703 (Mad.) has held that […]
DRI officers have not been entrusted the functions under the Customs Act by the Government under section 6 and hence cannot perform such functions. SCN in this case was not issued by ‘the proper officer‘, i.e., the officer who had assessed the Bills of Entry in the first place.
Held that section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Antidumping Duty is to be construed as Customs duty and therefore in view of the amendment that was carried out in 2009 all the provisions of Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder are squarely applicable to Antidumping Duty and as such in case of warehoused goods duty applicable as on the date of clearance from warehouse is to be recovered in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we find that Ld. Commissioner has correctly held that Antidumping Duty is payable by the appellants.
Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) In this case department opined that the appellant manufactured gold coins bearing a brand name of others and thus gold manufactured by them attract 1% duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200. The appellants in the […]
