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 […]
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) In this case here is no allegation raised by the department that the appellant is not eligible to avail credit of the duties / taxes paid on the inputs / input services. To put it more clearly, the appellant would be eligible […]
Mov and Go Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) It is the case of the Revenue that on examination of the shipping bills filed online by M/s. Mov and Go Logistics, Customs Broker (appellant herein) on behalf of the exporters, it is found that the appellant had furnished wrong Rotation number for the shipping […]
Heavy Vehicles Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) provisions of Rule 4 are very clear as regards the time limit for availment of Cenvat credit. We find that the provisions of Rules cannot be read in isolation. The entire set of Rules covering availment/utilization of credit i.e., CCR, 2004, has to be […]
