Veer Enterprise Vs C.C.-Kandla (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find the goods have been cleared and duty discharged as per the Tariff Heading proposed by the department. The Certificate of Chartered Engineer produced by the party is actually deficient, as it has been obtained behind the back of Customs Officials and does not show the time and […]
Velji P & Sons Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The case of the department is that the appellant M/s. Rawmin Mining and Industries Pvt. Ltd. is 100% export oriented unit has cleared 444903.645 MTs of their final product namely Beneficiated Bauxite and stored at the plot allotted to their custom house agent and shipping […]
Sunil Garg Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appeal is filed against penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the appellant as well as the third party. Therefore, these statements cannot […]
CESTAT held that respondent are entitle for the cenvat credit on the service of Repair & Maintenance during warranty period
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that ship imported for breaking purpose contains fuel and oil and accordingly they are by-product that are inevitably required to be removed from the ship. Hence, CENVAT Credit of the same duly available.
Ramaben Parmar Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the service tax on the job work carried out by the appellant, we find that the appellant have converted the casting by process of machining into a parts which is used by the principal manufacturer in the manufacture of their product. The conversion from rough casting […]
Once the show cause notice proposes a particular classification it is not open to Adjudicating authority to classify the goods under a different If the revenue wishes to change the classification a separate show cause notice is required to be issued within permissible time.
Assessee-company had not accepted the enhancement of the value as they had requested for passing a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further viewed that Commissioner (Appeals) had not adduced any evidence in support of his finding that assessee had accepted the enhancement of the value of the goods, therefore, assessee should be given sufficient opportunity for presenting their defence and also personal hearing be given before passing a speaking order.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under rule 26 of Central Excise Rules rightly imposed on the Chartered Accountant who issued false performance certificate to fraudulent parties based on which fraudulent advance license were obtained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that review of declared price without any evidence, to the effect that relation has influenced the declared price or to the effect that there was flow back of money from importer to related supplier, is unsustainable in law.
