Chittor Polyfab Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The circular dated 08.06.2018 also cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the period in question (April 2015 to June, 2017). At the relevant time, circular No. 988/12/2014 CX dated 20.10.2014 / Circular No. 97/8/2007-CX dated 23.8.2007 were applicable. It has […]
Online Cargo Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT upheld validity of Order passed after 90 days under regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 In the case of M/S Online Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51120 OF 2020], the Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the CESTAT) passed an interim order […]
Appellant contended that accumulated credits of Cesses were not transitioned into GST regime due to specific restriction under Section 140(1) of CGST Act. Appellant therefore had to resort to the option of refund under existing law to avoid lapsing of credit.
Manoj Gadhiya Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) It is apparent that the appellant was fully aware about the fictitious nature of the importers as the documents were being fabricated with his knowledge. He also admitted that he had never met the importer but solely relied on the documents submitted by High Sea Seller. His defense seems […]
Kankariya Automobiles (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) From the records and narration of Learned Authorised Representative, it would appear that the appellant, an authorized dealer and service centre for motor vehicles, had provided space for insurance companies to solicit customers of insurance contracts on the vehicles sold by them. […]
Astrazeneca India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Since the issue of interest on delayed refund has been settled by the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB is payable on expiry of three months […]
I am of the opinion that the Handheld Mixer are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned in BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018. I am of the opinion that the Handheld Mixer are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned in BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs PKPN Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (CESTAT Chennai) The issue involved is whether appellant is liable to pay service tax on the commission paid to foreign agents under the reverse charge mechanism. The parties are referred to as “assesee” and “department” for the same of convenience. 2. The respondents are engaged […]
Mere dispatch of the order cannot be considered as service. The period of 2 months for filing the appeal has to reckon not from the date of order announced but from the date of receipt of said order by the assessee in terms of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Divya Sree R O W Projects Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that when the passenger lift was imported, it was classified under Chapter 84 and the Classification was accepted by the Department and once the classification […]
