Appellant not liable to penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules as he has not done nor has been concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, etc., of excisable goods.
Held that mandatory deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act cannot be made by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under CGST Act.
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of deliberate suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty
Held that option is available to the appellant to claim cenvat credit on service tax paid on input services received in its SEZ units instead of claiming benefit of exemption notification.
The CESTAT, Allahabad in the matter of M/s. T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow [Service Tax Appeal No. 70377 of 2018 dated June 17, 2022] set aside the order passed by Revenue Department demanding Service tax for alleged suppression of correct value of taxable service by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Refund of credit of cess cannot be denied merely on the ground that such credit, which could not be utilized prior to GST regime, would stand lapsed.
Jhoola Refineries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Allahabad) Undisputedly, the bills of entry in this case were not assessed by the officers of DRI but by the officers of the Custom house. Only that officer who has assessed the Bills of Entry in the first place or his successor in office was ‘the […]
As per circular dated 23.08.2007 issued by the Department that clarifies that the payment of VAT/ Sales tax on a transaction has to be treated as sale of goods and levy of service tax on such transaction would not arise.
Confiscation of eleven gold bars-MMTC marking/brand was upheld and penalty under section 112(b) was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000 as the reliability of statement of Mr. Bajpai recorded during investigation was doubtful, as he had alleged coercion and duress.
What had been manufactured and supplied by assessee was ‘concrete mix’, which was not dutiable. Revenue had not brought any facts on record in support of its allegation of manufacture of RMC by assessee. Therefore, ‘concrete mix’ manufactured by assessee was not dutiable under Central Excise Act.
