Caravel Logistics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Handbook of Procedures issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) dated 08.04.2005 (2004-09) requires, at paragraph 2.32, in the case of import in the form of metallic waste, scrap, etc., referred to therein, the furnishing of pre-shipment inspection certificate at the time of […]
In this case findings of the Adjudicating Authority, clearly exonerates this appellant from the penal action under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for the reason that there was no material on record to prove that the appellant had submitted the fake gate pass.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the debit note doesnt contain the nature of taxable service provided by the other party to the appellant, such debit note cannot be considered a valid document as per Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 and hence CENVAT Credit ineligible.
CESTAT Chennai held that as duty was paid under protest period of limitation of one year envisaged in section 27(1B) of Customs Act 1962 will not apply even if refund claim made out of a consequence of judgment/ decree/ order.
Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) With regard to cenvat credit of input service availed for manufacture of exempted goods, namely, Ethyl Alcohol, the only argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is that they had availed credit by inadvertent mistake. The said mistake would not have […]
V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that requires to be analysed in these present appeals is whether the date of one year has to be computed from the date of resubmission of the refund claim or the date of original submission of the claim. Needless to say that […]
CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
Sree Rajendra Textiles Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute that after adjudication / assessment, the appellant did remit the CVD plus BCD and the same was not under protest and, as could be seen from the pleadings as well as the orders of both the lower authorities, the said adjudication / […]
Held that penalty u/s 112(a) imposed on customs broker is justified as importer of undeclared goods and undervalued goods is not traceable and the address as well as GST registration reflected in the documents are found to be fake.
There is no dispute that the MS items were used for fabricating and installing paint plant within the premises of the appellant. The said paint plant is also integral to the manufacturing activity. After appreciating the facts and applying the decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. (supra), CESTAT hold that the credit availed on MS items has to be allowed to the appellant.
