In the Commissioner of Customs vs Deepak Dialani trademark case, cross-examination was unavailable and the evidence inadmissible. Find out the implications here!
CESTAT Mumbai allows CENVAT credit for services related to manufacturing and clearing final products up to the place of removal. A critical analysis of the JSW Steel Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise case.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Appellant is merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder. Accordingly, Appellant is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle. Hence, demand of duty unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that benefit of notification no. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010 cannot be denied as commercial production from expanded capacity commenced on or after 06.02.2010.
Read about the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Century Plyboards I Ltd Vs C.C.-Kandla case, highlighting the denial of anti-dumping duty refund for past clearances and its implications.
CESTAT Kolkata’s decision to uphold the enhanced value of customs duty on a multi-function printer based on a chartered engineer’s estimation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that benefit of preferential rate vide Notification 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 not deniable as Certificate of country of origin from Malysia Chamber of Commerce for subsequent import of identical goods afterward submitted.
CESTAT Kolkata held that provisions of rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable when CENVAT Credit attributable to non-excisable goods not availed. Accordingly, demand set aside.
CESTAT Bangalore’s ruling on Gelatin Mass Waste generated during manufacturing, addressing the demand for CENVAT credit reversal and its sustainability.
CESTAT Kolkata held that fabric containing both Cotton and polyester in the ratio of 79.2% and 16.8% respectively is rightly classifiable under the CTH 52113190 as Cotton Polyester fabric. Accordingly, demand of differential duty of customs set aside.
