Held that Rule 16 allows the assessee to avail the cenvat credit of duty paid on the goods cleared by them, as if such goods are received as inputs
Held that Appellant lost the ownership of the goods as soon as let export order was issued and hence Appellant cannot be held responsible if the importer situated at Iran had given instruction to change the port.
Revenue has not made out any case of mis-declaration and consequential undervaluation. Therefore, we find no merit in the re-determination of the value of the yacht and confirmation of differential duty thereon.
K K Spun India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that the show cause notice is mis-conceived, as the finished products manufactured by the appellant are not exempted, rather are dutiable @ 10% ad valorem as per CTH 68109990 under the Central Excise […]
G & G Ispat (P) Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant admittedly has paid the service tax chargeable from them under reverse charge mechanism, on 31.10.2015, which was reflected in the return filed for the period 2014-15, which was filed on 21.01.2016. Further, appellant has also informed this fact of tax having been deposited vide […]
CESTAT set aside order of Revenue Department demanding service tax on Ocean Freight Charges under Business Support Services.
CESTAT held that the revaluation of the goods which are not subjected to BIS specifications was made in arbitrary manner and was not adhere to the principles of natural justice.
CESTAT held that Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) agent service is admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Refusal of SAD to the Appellant-importer by the Refund Sanctioning Authority that has received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round of litigation is assailed in this appeal. The gist of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is that goods imported and goods […]
CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of PLA is only advance not duty therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.
