Gold bar with foreign marking, source of which is not explained, is liable for absolute confiscation since the same would amount to the importation of a prohibited goods.
Department denied refund of Pre-deposit for appeal on the ground that dispute related to service tax whereas pre-deposit was made under Excise Duty.
BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The Tribunal in the case of Shree Rohini Enterprises – 2017 (346) ELT 461 (Tri-Ahmd.) held that value of deemed export is to be treated as export sale determined on FOB value of export. The same was confirmed by the Supreme Court reported […]
The appellant falls into the criteria of an eligible passenger. He is thus allowed to import gold jewellery upto 10 kilograms by paying appropriate customs duty. The currencies seized from him are sufficient to pay the customs duty for the gold carried by him.
Doosan Bobcat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is whether the amount of Rs.28.14 lakhs in the nature of payment of royalty can be included in the transaction value and whether it is a condition of sale. From the facts narrated above, it is seen that there is no agreement […]
Asveen Air Travels (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that arises for consideration is whether the incentive received by the appellant for using the CRS Developer is subject to service tax or not. The Larger Bench in the case of Kafila Hospitality and Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has […]
Freight Link Logistics Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) In the present case, it is not disputed that M/s. Vaaraahi Traders are licensed to import goods and that their IE Code is valid. The case set up by the department is that the goods imported are for the use / purchase of Shri A. […]
TIDC India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) To claim Cenvat Credit primarily the service should be first covered under the definition of ‘input service’ and once the service is not covered due to exclusion clause irrespective of the fact whether the cost of service has been taken as expenditure in […]
HID India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) In this case refund of the unutilized cenvat credit was rejected holding that; firstly, the input services were received prior to obtaining the service tax registration from the Department; secondly, the invoices show the address of their Head office at Bangalore and […]
Ingram Micro India Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports)(CESTAT Chennai) It can be seen that the refund claim is rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced the Chartered Accountant certificate to establish that the burden of 4% Additional Duty has not been passed on to another. In page 21 of the appeal […]
