J. K. Cement Works Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed Cenvat credit totalling Rs. 2,50,195/-, which was mainly on account of iron and steel structure, tower material, steel casting. Appellant inter alia urges that admittedly these items have been used by the appellant in the factory of production. These items […]
CESTAT set aside the demand order has held that invoking extended limitation period by the Revenue Department cannot be sustained, being time barred and is invalid in absence of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of assessee.
The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Once the verification is done requirement of regulation 10(n) is satisfied.
Inductotherm India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Only ground on which the department has been denying the exemption Notification No. 25/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 is that the subject imported goods are exempted only if it is imported and used by the IT Industries whereas, in the appellant’s case the industry is not IT Industry but […]
Appellant had reasonably explained the licit possession of the two gold bars, as received by way of succession under the will of his father however due to unexplained source of licit acquisition by father of appellant, penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) and penalty under Section 114AA was set aside.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) 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 […]
Savita Oil Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The issue revolves around the alleged non-receipt of ‘inputs’ in excess of the tolerance margin of 0.4% at the facility of the appellant as evidenced by their own ‘goods receipt note (GRN)’ for the disputed period and the impugned order held that ‘8. The […]
Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant then sought for refund of the service tax paid by them to the tune of Rs.11,60,968/- on the ground that no services were provided by the German company to them and that the amount having been refunded to them, they […]
Suzuki Morots Gujarat Private Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the classification of the disputed goods, in question, under heading 8708, has not given any finding as to whether all the above conditions which are very important for deciding the classification of goods, satisfy / comply in respect of the disputed […]
Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Anil Dudalal Kaneria vs C.C.E. Understand the penalty reduction from INR 5 Lacs to INR 1 Lac for failure in goods accounting. Details and implications.
