Service Tax demand was quashed as inclusion of turnover of Manufacturing unit for quantification of amount for reversal of CENVAT Credit was appropriate since for the entire remaining activities of the Puducherry manufacturing unit, the centralized service tax registration at Bangalore was applicable, which was as a SERVICE PROVIDER as well as an INPUT SERVICE DISTRIBUTOR.
Pearl Drinks Limited Vs C.G. & S.T. Jammu (CESTAT Chandigarh) It is a fact on record that at the time of clearance of goods, the appellant paid duty and claim refund thereof only, there is a Cenvat credit relying in Cenvat credit account unutilized due to return of goods already cleared by the appellant on […]
As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
Jaison James Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The Revenue, having alleged one Salman as the mastermind, has not bothered to place anything on record, which has left innumerable doubts and questions unanswered, like the above. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed on surmises, assumptions and presumptions and there is not even any circumstantial evidence brought […]
Jovex International Vs Commissioner, Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In this case applicable section for grant of interest is Section 35FF, which provides for grant of interest on the amount refundable pursuant to order of the Appellate Court. It is further provided in this section that interest should be granted from the date of deposit till […]
I have to conclude that it was a genuine mistake of issuing wrong invoice which has been used by the CHA to file the Bill of Entry. The wrong invoice of USD 23750 was not given by the appellant, but the same was collected by CHA from the shipping liner. The appellant cannot be implicated for such mistake by imposing penalty. Moreover, the penalty imposed under Section 114AA is attracted only when there is deliberate falsification of documents in order to get undue benefit.
Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that once the four companies have become one, by merger, under operation of law w.e.f. 01.01.2015, as per order of the competent Court, the transactions between them during the effective date and the date […]
Ajanta Overseas Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the power to recover the […]
Jindal Texofab Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As per the above report it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for Rs 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of […]
Service of granting of mining rights provided by the Government would not fall under the category of ‘support services’ and after 01.04.2016 the liability was always cast upon the service recipient
