Redemption fine & penalty imposed by Revenue Department without final assessment is not permissible The Hon’ble CESTAT Chandigarh in matter of M/s J.S. Steel Traders v. the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana [Custom Appeal No. 60037 of 2021, Final Order No. 60840/2021 dated May 24, 2021] set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department, imposing […]
Laesen & Toubro Limited Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In view of the settled law, irrespective whether the classification claimed by the appellant is correct or not since the classification proposed by the Revenue is absolutely incorrect, the entire case of the Revenue will not sustain. Therefore, we are not addressing the issue that whether the […]
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST on the timeliness of a refund claim post-GST regime changes. Insightful analysis for businesses navigating GST transitions.
Whether the time limit prescribed for filing refund claim of SAD paid by the importer is one year in terms of Notification No. 93/2008(Cus) dated 01.08.2008 which has been issued in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without selling the imported goods by the importer within one year of payment of SAD shall be applicable or not needs to be referred to the Larger Bench of Tribunal.
Since assessee had exercised option in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and once this fact was established from the materials on record, there could be no demand in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and also nowhere it was mentioned that an assessee should pay any amount higher than that of the actual amount calculated under the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Huhtamaki PPL Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. regarding Cenvat Credit on warehousing services. Know the legal insights and implications.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai order in MRF Ltd. vs Commissioner of GST & CE. Understand the eligibility of cenvat credit on service tax paid for outward transportation of goods.
• In a partnership firm, partner‘s capital can be in the form of cash/asset. It can also be in the form of contribution of skill and labour alone without contribution in cash. The appellant is a partner performing some duties for which he has an expertise, skill in the marketing and distribution of the goods manufactured by partnership firm M/s Zydus Healthcare. And as a remuneration, the appellant have been received the amount which is nothing else but a special share in the profit.
Explore the case of Hari Babu vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai). Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962, time-bar appeal, analysis, and remand order detailed.
Explore the legal battle between Baby Marine Seafood Retail Pvt. Ltd. and C.C, Cochin (CESTAT Bangalore) over seafood import. Understand the intricacies of compliance with Indian food safety standards, lab analyses, and the contested Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
