CENVAT credit cannot be denied due to the reason that the invoices were issued in the name of head offices with centralised registration. The purpose of taking centralized registration is to help the manufacturer for availment of credit as well as distribution of credit.
Sree Krishna Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Appellant submitted that the Show Cause Notice having been issued by DRI, the order passed cannot sustain in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2021 (376) ELT 3 (SC). […]
Royal Shelter Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The department was of the view that the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the taxable services of construction of residential complex rendered by them. Show Cause Notice demanding service tax for the period January 2009 to January 2010 was issued to […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs B. Dhananjayan (CESTAT Chennai) For violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations the agent is not an inspector, but rather a processing agent of documents with respect to clearance of goods through Customs House; that the mentioning of IE Code of the exporter in the shipping bill would itself reflect that before […]
Bata India Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the Adjudicating Authority has mis-directed in denying the CENVAT Credit and that the Commissioner has not appreciated the facts of the case properly nor has she examined the facts of the case from the perspective […]
CESTAT held that, right to claim Service Tax refund cannot be denied merely on account of procedural lapse of filing TRAN-1 before December 27, 2017.
Circor Flow Technologies India Private Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, (CESTAT Chennai) Section 142 (3) of GST Act provides how to deal with claims of refund of service tax of tax and duty / credit under the erstwhile It is stated that therein that such claims have to be disposed in […]
Jaison James Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The Revenue, having alleged one Salman as the mastermind, has not bothered to place anything on record, which has left innumerable doubts and questions unanswered, like the above. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed on surmises, assumptions and presumptions and there is not even any circumstantial evidence brought […]
I have to conclude that it was a genuine mistake of issuing wrong invoice which has been used by the CHA to file the Bill of Entry. The wrong invoice of USD 23750 was not given by the appellant, but the same was collected by CHA from the shipping liner. The appellant cannot be implicated for such mistake by imposing penalty. Moreover, the penalty imposed under Section 114AA is attracted only when there is deliberate falsification of documents in order to get undue benefit.
imported goods and therefore could not collect further amount against the amended bills of entry presented by the new purchaser cannot be a ground to issue a Show Cause Notice alleging attempt to claim an undue refund.
