Nizar Moulavi Abdul Khader Vs Commissioner of Customs Mangalore (CESTAT Bangalore) Order-in-Original records a finding that gold was found in the foot band worn for medical purpose on both the feet of the appellant, well hidden/covered with black socks, shoes put over them. This is claimed as having been found on the ‘person of the […]
CESTAT held that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 will not be applicable.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore judgment in Apnacar.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, addressing refund claim on excess taxes paid, evidentiary requirements, and time limits.
IBM India Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore-ltu (CESTAT Bangalore) Admittedly the appellants are providing the services to their foreign company situated outside India and their parent company does not have any commercial or industrial establishment or any office in India and the services by appellant are provided in relation to provision of service recipient […]
Sales marketing and support services provided to its group companies are export of service because the said services have been provided on principal to principal basis and there is no element of principal-agent relationship.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal provided relief to the Appellant by allowing the CENVAT credit on tower materials and prefabricated buildings or shelters by relying on the Judgment of Vodafone pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which have relied on the Judgment of Solid and Correct Engineering Works which laid down the permanency test.
Appellant contended that accumulated credits of Cesses were not transitioned into GST regime due to specific restriction under Section 140(1) of CGST Act. Appellant therefore had to resort to the option of refund under existing law to avoid lapsing of credit.
Astrazeneca India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) Since the issue of interest on delayed refund has been settled by the apex court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB is payable on expiry of three months […]
I am of the opinion that the Handheld Mixer are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned in BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018. I am of the opinion that the Handheld Mixer are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned in BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018
Divya Sree R O W Projects Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that when the passenger lift was imported, it was classified under Chapter 84 and the Classification was accepted by the Department and once the classification […]
