Traco Cable Company Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Respondent Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) The first question as to whether the supplementary invoices relate to the date of original clearance or the date on which the supplementary invoice was raised has been decided by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India. Accordingly, interest under Section 11AB […]
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the cost of Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sale Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the […]
Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice. Conclusion– The Supreme Court observed that the […]
CESTAT held that the adjustment of the tax demand from the unutilized cenvat credit lying as on June 30, 2017 can be carried forward to the GST regime by the Assessee.
Show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer. Accordingly, duty demand fails. The proposal for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty cannot be segregated from the duty demand and, therefore, if the duty demand fails as the show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer, the proceedings for confiscation and penalty cannot survive.
imported goods and therefore could not collect further amount against the amended bills of entry presented by the new purchaser cannot be a ground to issue a Show Cause Notice alleging attempt to claim an undue refund.
The appellant or its employee has not conducted any due diligence measures. They claimed to have obtained KYC documents through email but have failed to produce them either before the Inquiry officer or at any stage. The irresistible conclusion can only be that they have no such documents and also no idea of who the exporter was and simply filed a Shipping Bill heavily over-invoicing the goods. Held that revocation of customer broker licence due to non-production of KYC of the exporters is sustainable in law.
Where VAT had been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax could be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
Insecticides India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C G & S T, Jammu (CESTAT Chandigarh) It is an admitted fact that earlier orders of this Tribunal have been accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed against those orders. In the absence of any challenge to the orders of this Tribunal, the adjudicating authority […]
M/s. ACC Limited (Unit: Madukkarai Cement Works) Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is clear that the litigation with regard to the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2009 has continued till 27.02.2018 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore has set aside the demand, interest and penalties confirmed in the […]
