CESTAT Delhi’s ruling in National Steel & Agro Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner – Analysis of Rule 6(3A) in proportionate credit division. Crucial insights for manufacturers on compliance.
Even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be evoked only when suppression‟ was shown to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner had not recorded any finding that even if assessee had suppressed the fact of having received the amount, it was willful and with an intent evade payment of service.
Explore the case of Volvo Auto India vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi). Learn about customs duty, valuation rules, and the impact of expenses on the assessable value.
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) 1. Excise Appeal 70628 of 2019 has been filed by M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd1 to modify the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner, CGST(Appeals), Noida2, to the extent that interest should be granted @12% instead of @6%, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order […]
Since authorized courier was prohibited from opening and verifying contents of imported consignments and it had not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 could not be sustained.
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.
