Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) I find that admittedly, the appellant have used the disputed inputs for fabrication of clean room, which is essential for manufacture of their dutiable goods, as such clean room is necessary for maintaining proper temperature and hygiene as well as keeping the RH factor in control, and […]
Recon Steel & Power Private Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Since the sole challenge to the order is its reliance upon third party evidence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of the third party The relevant case law in the case of Bajrangbali Ingots & Steel […]
AGFA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) On perusal of the documents, it is seen that there is no dispute that the appellant has paid excess duty of Rs.29,57,931/- after reassessment of the bills of entry by extending the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The refund has been rejected on the ground […]
Vishnu Fragrance Pvt.Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Central Excise and Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, provides for abatement in case of non production of goods (in case of factory did not produce the notified goods […]
Chandigarh CESTAT ruling in Maharaja Crane Services vs. Commissioner of CGST – Applicability of Limitation Act to service tax matters. Legal insights on demand beyond the five-year limit.
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh order in Manavi Exim Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. Learn about the implications of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act on re-assessment and the importance of a speaking order.
Nayara Energy Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the adjudication authority in respect of most of the services denied the credit on the ground that no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that the services was availed by the appellant and also on the ground that there is […]
KEC International Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT New Delhi) amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B. Keeping in view the same, to my opinion Section 11B should not have been […]
It was held that when an Institute run by a State Government and associated in implementation of various welfare schemes of the Government, the allegations of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement can be nothing but absurd.
Shree Mohangarh Construction Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT New Delhi) The first contract is supply of river sand; it is not for loading or unloading any cargo. Needless to say that if somebody has to supply river sand it has to loaded into the truck and unloaded it at the […]
