CESTAT Delhi partially allows Marudhar Hotels’ appeal regarding Cenvat credit demands under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Read detailed judgment analysis.
The appellants had filed a refund claim with Assistant Commissioner of Customs (CRS), Visakhapatnam for Rs.5,03,984/- on 10.08.2023. The said refund claim was that the appellant had paid the Duty twice due to ‘ICEGATE error’.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that service tax cannot be demanded when tax liability is already settled under Reverse Charge Mechanism.
CESTAT Chennai held that insulin manufactured using r-DNA technology would qualify as a mono component insulin and hence benefit of exemption notification under Notification No. 12/2012 – Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available.
CESTAT Delhi quashes orders passed after one year of SCN issuance in Kopertek Metals Pvt Ltd vs CGST Commissioner, emphasizing statutory adjudication timelines.
The said SCN was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order by confirming the proposals made in the SCN. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
CESTAT Chennai held that when an importer has voluntarily accepted the enhanced value without any protest then he is precluded from challenging the same. Thus, order upheld to the extent of duty demand. Whereas, confiscation, fine and penalty set aside.
Assistant Commissioner, however, rejected the benefit of the Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the fuel oil lying in the engine room is part and parcel of the ship which is imported for breaking and hence CENVAT Credit is duly admissible on the same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad confirms assembly of imported TV parts qualifies as manufacturing, allowing Bossh Technology India concessional duty benefit.
