CESTAT Allahabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 114AA of the Customs Act not justified since customs broker was not held responsible for forging any documents for clearance of goods. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 114AA set aside.
The Officers found that factory was operational. On being demanded, Sujit Kumar Bera produced all the gold available in the factory. Total quantity of gold was found to be 2417 grams.
CESTAT Allahabad held that amendment of bill of entry under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for claiming benefit of duty exemption certificate received after clearance of goods allowed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable value of Rs.22,93,296/- for which deduction has been claimed by the party is part of the value of taxable services and is not allowed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of cenvat credit, merely because the credit is availed on the basis of debit note, not justified since debit note covered all the requisite particulars. Accordingly, cenvat allowed on the basis of debit note.
CESTAT Allahabad held that claim of cash refund of service tax paid under RCM not admissible since CENVAT Credit was never claimed and transitional provisions under GST was not complied.
CESTAT Allahabad held that penalty imposable for the act of smuggling of battery scrap by concealing the same with plastic scrap through un-notified route from Nepal. Accordingly, penalty upheld and appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that customs duty leviable on manufacturing of stainless steel coils under Advance Authorisation Scheme is exempt. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to refund of CVD paid on the same.
CESTAT Allahabad held that material imported based MOEF permission by a company cannot be diverted to any other unit for any purpose other than one stated in permission letter.
The CESTAT ruled that interest on refundable pre-deposits is mandatory, regardless of whether it’s claimed, in the India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. case.
