MTL Instruments Private Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The definition of input service was amended with effect from 01.04.2011 which has been reproduced in paragraph 5.1 above. The definition contains an exclusion clause wherein the credit availed on Rent-a-Cab Services as well as Outdoor Catering Services has been specifically excluded. […]
Hera Shipping Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) In order to attract section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, the department has to establish some act or omission by which the appellant has abetted the offence. Brief facts are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zonal Unit gathered specific intelligence that […]
R.S. Arunachalam Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) These appeals are filed against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order passed by original authority and remanded the matter to reconsider the non-imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s.R.S. Arunachalam is the Customs Broker […]
Airport Authority of India/ AAICLAS Vs Commissioner of Customs (AIR) (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellant is constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and was granted custodianship inter-alia of the export cargo. They have to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Rules, Regulations and instructions issued from time […]
Learn about CESTAT Chennai’s decision on Appu Hotels Ltd.’s eligibility for exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE for using the brand name “Le Royal Meridien
Held that section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Antidumping Duty is to be construed as Customs duty and therefore in view of the amendment that was carried out in 2009 all the provisions of Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder are squarely applicable to Antidumping Duty and as such in case of warehoused goods duty applicable as on the date of clearance from warehouse is to be recovered in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we find that Ld. Commissioner has correctly held that Antidumping Duty is payable by the appellants.
Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) In this case department opined that the appellant manufactured gold coins bearing a brand name of others and thus gold manufactured by them attract 1% duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200. The appellants in the […]
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) (CESTAT Chennai) The issue involved the present case is that whether the Antenna for base station imported by the appellant is classifiable as parts of base station under CTH 85177090 as claimed by the appellant or as machine/equipment for the reception, transmission and conversion of […]
Perfect Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (AIR) (CESTAT Chennai) In the present case, the adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty of Rs.2 lakhs. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the appellant that the goods were intended to be supplied to another customer of another country has allowed the request for re-export. […]
Suraj Forwarders & Shipping Agencies Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) The facts narrated as above establishes that service tax has been paid twice by the appellant for the very same taxable value. Though the department agrees that the earlier payment made by challan dated 05.01.2015 on the service tax registration number […]
