What had been manufactured and supplied by assessee was ‘concrete mix’, which was not dutiable. Revenue had not brought any facts on record in support of its allegation of manufacture of RMC by assessee. Therefore, ‘concrete mix’ manufactured by assessee was not dutiable under Central Excise Act.
CESTAT Delhi grants refund to Amzole India Pvt. Ltd. on service tax. Advocate Anand Bhattacharya highlights key ruling. Legal insights on service tax dispute.
Lightspeed India Partners Advisors LLP Vs Commissioner Central Tax (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Since the GST regime has done away with the ST 3 return, there remain no provision in GST system to reflect the refund claim in the CENVAT credit balance. The only option was to show its reversal in the Books of accounts. Such […]
Notification No. 52 ibid as amended by Notification Nos. 30 and 34 ibid clearly prescribe vide new Condition No.8 which is extracted elsewhere in this order that no duty shall be leviable if raw material is destroyed within the unit after intimation to the Customs authorities.
Nava Bharat Ventures Limited Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) Rule 15 (Confiscation and penalty) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides for imposition of penalty if CENVAT credit has been wrongly availed which allegation must be made in the show cause notice with a proposal to recover such wrongly availed […]
Service Tax demand was quashed as inclusion of turnover of Manufacturing unit for quantification of amount for reversal of CENVAT Credit was appropriate since for the entire remaining activities of the Puducherry manufacturing unit, the centralized service tax registration at Bangalore was applicable, which was as a SERVICE PROVIDER as well as an INPUT SERVICE DISTRIBUTOR.
Pearl Drinks Limited Vs C.G. & S.T. Jammu (CESTAT Chandigarh) It is a fact on record that at the time of clearance of goods, the appellant paid duty and claim refund thereof only, there is a Cenvat credit relying in Cenvat credit account unutilized due to return of goods already cleared by the appellant on […]
As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
Jaison James Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The Revenue, having alleged one Salman as the mastermind, has not bothered to place anything on record, which has left innumerable doubts and questions unanswered, like the above. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed on surmises, assumptions and presumptions and there is not even any circumstantial evidence brought […]
Jovex International Vs Commissioner, Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In this case applicable section for grant of interest is Section 35FF, which provides for grant of interest on the amount refundable pursuant to order of the Appellate Court. It is further provided in this section that interest should be granted from the date of deposit till […]
