Shobha Plastics Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Principal Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad vide impugned order has imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act upon the appellants Jayesh Mehta and Harshad Vadodaria on the ground that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer in importing the goods by way […]
CESTAT held that assessee is not liable for payment of either excise duty or cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on empty packaging material of cenvatable input.
Held that buyer’s premises cannot, in law, be a place of removal under Section 4. Demand duty thereon is unsustainable in law
CENVAT credit is available on the amount of service tax paid for the services provided by the dealers to the customers on behalf of the appellant for fulfilling the warranty obligations of the appellant.
CESTAT set aside the demand order has held that invoking extended limitation period by the Revenue Department cannot be sustained, being time barred and is invalid in absence of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of assessee.
Inductotherm India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Only ground on which the department has been denying the exemption Notification No. 25/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 is that the subject imported goods are exempted only if it is imported and used by the IT Industries whereas, in the appellant’s case the industry is not IT Industry but […]
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of […]
Suzuki Morots Gujarat Private Limited Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the classification of the disputed goods, in question, under heading 8708, has not given any finding as to whether all the above conditions which are very important for deciding the classification of goods, satisfy / comply in respect of the disputed […]
Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Anil Dudalal Kaneria vs C.C.E. Understand the penalty reduction from INR 5 Lacs to INR 1 Lac for failure in goods accounting. Details and implications.
we find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims solely on limitation. There is no dispute of the fact that the goods have been exported by the appellant during the period April 2008 to March 2009 by utilizing the services on which service tax was payable for the exported goods.
