I have to conclude that it was a genuine mistake of issuing wrong invoice which has been used by the CHA to file the Bill of Entry. The wrong invoice of USD 23750 was not given by the appellant, but the same was collected by CHA from the shipping liner. The appellant cannot be implicated for such mistake by imposing penalty. Moreover, the penalty imposed under Section 114AA is attracted only when there is deliberate falsification of documents in order to get undue benefit.
Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that once the four companies have become one, by merger, under operation of law w.e.f. 01.01.2015, as per order of the competent Court, the transactions between them during the effective date and the date […]
Ajanta Overseas Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the power to recover the […]
Jindal Texofab Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As per the above report it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for Rs 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of […]
Service of granting of mining rights provided by the Government would not fall under the category of ‘support services’ and after 01.04.2016 the liability was always cast upon the service recipient
Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- Refund claim filed by the appellant is rejected on various grounds like- -For the refund claim period no ST-3 return was filed. -Services allegedly exported by the appellant were not used outside India. -Some input tax credit invoices […]
CESTAT held that Nimbooz by 7 UP and Nimbus masala soda by 7 UP are classifiable under chapter heading 22029020 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is for category of fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks and thus M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
Subir Modak Vs CC (CESTAT Kolkata) From the above definitions, it is clear that even if the goods are of foreign origin, if they have been imported and cleared for home consumption, they cease to be imported goods thereafter and the importer ceases to be the importer. Therefore, no duty can be assessed on such […]
PLG Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: The ‘coated paper’, as certified by the competent authority designated under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), did not conform to the description corresponding to sub-heading 8410.13 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The denial of the benefit of the concessional rate of duty […]
So-Hum Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Kolkata) We find that the Appellant was not availing any benefit in terms of the Exemption Notification and there was no occasion for confiscation of the live goods under Bill of Entry No.2321708 dated 05.07.2017 as the letter dated 16.07.2017 shows that the Country of Origin Certificate […]
