CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demand under Clause (i) of Rule 6(3) i.e. payment of 5%/10% of the value of exempted goods unjustified as appellant rightly availed the option of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 i.e. reversal of proportionate cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods.
CESTAT Chennai held that seizure of gold jewellery unjustified as revenue failed to establish beyond doubt that gold jewellery seized is of foreign origin.
Analyze the CESTAT Chandigarh order in M R Beltings vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, focusing on the issue of willful suppression and its impact on excise duty demand.
CESTAT Kolkata held that naphtha used for generation of electricity which is consumed within the factory of production is eligible for Cenvat Credit.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of harsh punishment of revocation of Customs Broker Licence in absence of any active or passive facilitation in mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods unjustified.
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of notification no. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 available in respect of molasses which is captively consumed for the manufacture of rectified spirit as rectified spirit is a dutiable excisable goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant is not liable to pay an amount equal to 10%/6%/5% of the value of exempted goods as proportionate Cenvat credit on common input service attributed to the exempted final product already reversed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand alleging undervaluation of imported goods merely on the basis of retracted statements without corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
Exploring the key details of the GKN Driveline (India) Ltd vs CCE case at CESTAT Chandigarh, and its impact on the reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 3(5B).
Analyzing the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on Bayer Vapi Pvt Ltd. vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman case, focusing on Cenvat re-credit, suo moto reversal, and legal implications.
