Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai) The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the credit availed by the appellant-bank on the Service Tax paid on the basis of the premium paid to DICGC for insuring deposits is eligible for CENVAT Credit or not. The said issue […]
CESTAT held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture by the job worker is not included in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
No limitation is applicable to claim of Service Tax refund claim filed after GST introduction due to overriding effect of Section 142(8)(b) of CGST Act and claim can be denied only on grounds of unjust enrichment.
Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when the goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’.
It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come to notice but for the verification of the audit department. In the absence of any specific allegation and proof that the appellant has suppressed facts, the extended period cannot be invoked.
Corrigendum to an Order in Original can be issued only for correcting typographical errors. A corrigendum cannot be used to cover up the main part or main issue that has to be adjudicated.
Behag Overseas Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Misdeclaration of goods and attempt to export such goods is punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act. A Customs House Agent, who is a party to the mis-declaration, is liable to pay penalty. Facts- On specific intelligence, it was alleged that red sanders log are being […]
India Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT held that that the credit on outward transportation from the place of removal upto the buyers’ premises / dealers for period upto 31.03.2008 is eligible. FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER The above matters have come up for hearing as per […]
Sun Sea Shipping Agency Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The goods are counterfeit and have been confiscated. However, penalty u/s 112(a) being on higher side is reduced Facts- The assessee filed a Bill of Entry dated 22.12.2017 through their Customs Broker M/s. Sun Sea Shipping Agency for the clearance of import consignment in […]
When the appellants have been given permission to clear the goods in DTA by the Development Commissioner (DC), the department cannot then vaguely allege that they are not similar goods.
