Comexx Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the decisions relied on by the appellant in his support were passed without appreciating the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills (supra) and in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. UOI – 1997 (89) […]
Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs Adani Power Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regards the issue that whether Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority, we find that this being a case of refund of service tax, clearly covered by the ratio of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case […]
Since no services were being specially provided by the customs officials to the custodians at a customs port or customs airport, to enable them to collect any fee, from such a custodian thus, High Court not only set-aside the demand of Cost Recovery charges but even held that Regulation 5(2) of Regulation 2009 was illegal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has upheld the Commissioner (A) Order allowing Cenvat credit of the duty paid on provisionally assessed bill of entry in a case where the final assessment revealed that less duty was payable. The Tribunal in this regard relied upon number of case law and observed that it is settled that even though certain amount of excise duty/service tax is not payable as per law but the manufacturer/service provider pays it, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied at the recipient end only on the ground that the same was not payable by the manufacturer/service provider.
After amendment of section 110(2) it was concluded that no separate notice was necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority had to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months.
Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani, when penalty is imposed on partnership firm, penalty cannot be imposed on its partner.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that Para 4.28(f) of Handbook of Procedure, 2004-09 relating to regularization of bonafide default by exporters using Advance Authorisations, cannot be applied straight away to normal imports where export obligations have been fulfilled.
IILM Business School Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) appellants themselves are not recognized by law to grant any degree and therefore, the service provided by the appellant qualifies as Commercial Coaching and Training. Notification 10/2003 reads as under:- “Commercial training or coaching centre providing commercial training or coaching of specified type exempted In […]
Texool Wastesavers Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Relying on the permission which was granted in terms of project report made before the Development Commissioner, which stated that the SEZ unit was permitted to import garments that were almost new but could be out of fashion in terms of time as far as the country of production […]
Mathew Abraham Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Riva Exports Ltd. Wherein the present appellant is working as Accounts Manager has supplied the films for job work under the cover of job work challan. In my considered view this is more than sufficient compliance for transaction of the goods. Since Riva Exports Ltd.is not a […]
