These appeals are directed against Order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, whereby Ld. Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lacs under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 on CHA, M/s. Daroowala Brothers and Company and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on Shri. Pervez Irani.
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Refined Palm Oil and are registered with the Central Excise Department. Show cause notice was issued alleging that they have cleared fatty acid or soap stock without payment of duty.
The appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for rendering Business Auxiliary Services. They filed a refund claim of service tax paid on various services provided by their service providers for export of Indian milling wheat during the months of October, 2012 to December, 2012 in terms of Notification No. 41/2012- ST dated 29.6.2012. Service tax is governed by Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended.
Ld. Advocate submits that the amounts collected from the tenants / lessees would only be in the nature of collection of reimbursable expenses and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Intercontinental Technocrafts Pvt. Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC) will apply.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant.
The original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that only photocopies of the Bills of Entry, TR6 challans and sales invoices were produced by the appellant. Thus, for want of production of original documents, refund claim was rejected, which was later upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal.
C.C.E. & S.T. Vs Hindalco Industries Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Dross and Skimming were nonferrous metal for any such by-product or waste which are non-excisable goods and are cleared for a consideration from the factory need to be treated like exempted goods for the purpose of reversal of credit of input or input service in terms […]
Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST, Mumbai Central (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case demand was raised from the input service distributor who has distributed the service credit to their respective factory on the ground that the input service viz. air travel agent service, is not admissible as the service related to business activity […]
Penalty under Rule 26 can be imposed only on the natural individual person and not on the artificial person or company because the goods is handled by natural living person and not by an artificial entity.
On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of Central Excise duty paid on various petroleum products which are consumed by the respondent whether it can be refunded or otherwise.
