Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellant had imported certain goods under Advance Authorization Scheme vide various licenses. As the Advance Authorization expired, the appellants were unable to fulfill their export obligation as stipulated in these licenses. They have paid appropriate duty and interest on the quantity […]
CESTAT held that the assistance rendered by the appellants to their member farmers in auctioning their agricultural produce does not tantamount to rendering any service classifiable under ‘Auctioneers’ Service’.
Mere entries in third parties’ records of Transporters and brokers cannot be basis for clandestine removal. It is settled law that documents recovered from a third party can be used against the manufacturer to prove clandestine removal only when these are supported with corroborative evidences.
Brose India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Denial to avail CENVAT credit on Service Tax paid during GST regime under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on import of services by the Appellant manufacturing company and its confirmation by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune vide above referred […]
Gold bar with foreign marking, source of which is not explained, is liable for absolute confiscation since the same would amount to the importation of a prohibited goods.
Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Issue of leviability of Service tax on penalty, liquidated damages, compensation, forfeiture amounts, cancellation charges etc. stands settled by various pronouncements wherein it has consistently been held that the said amounts recovered as charges for breach or non-compliance of contractual terms […]
CESTAT held that Composition Scheme cannot be denied to the appellants merely on the ground of discharge of service tax under different Head prior to 01.06.2007.
Department denied refund of Pre-deposit for appeal on the ground that dispute related to service tax whereas pre-deposit was made under Excise Duty.
BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The Tribunal in the case of Shree Rohini Enterprises – 2017 (346) ELT 461 (Tri-Ahmd.) held that value of deemed export is to be treated as export sale determined on FOB value of export. The same was confirmed by the Supreme Court reported […]
Ramvir Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that the appellant has received full set of documents through the freight forwarder and there was no reason for him to doubt the genuineness of the exporter. Further, as the goods were factory stuffed and sealed, the appellant – CHA has no reason to doubt […]
