A detailed look at the case of IGP Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, where CESTAT ruled that duty exemption could not be denied due to an initial mismatch.
CESTAT Chennai held that as all the details are furnished based on which permission for DTA clearance was granted. Accordingly, allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. Hence demand set aside as time barred.
CESTAT Chennai held that Upgraded Beneficiated Ilmenite are synthetic Rutile and hence classifiable under CTH 2823 and not under 2614.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as department was duly aware about what was being imported and the purpose thereof.
CESTAT Chennai held that confiscation of goods cannot be sustained as imported goods are provisionally released after complying with the necessary requirement of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
CESTAT Chennai held that branch office located in USA rendered the ‘onsite support service’ to its associated enterprise (AE) situated outside India and hence the same is not exigible to tax under the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly all charges under the Finance Act are set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that as Chapter Heading 3302 covers both natural and/or synthetic mixtures of odoriferous substances, ‘tomato dry flavour’ is correctly classifiable under CTH 3302 10 10 instead of 2106 90 60.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation justified as non-filing of ST-3 returns for such a long period i.e., from March 2006 to March 2010 will make the intent to evade tax obvious.
CESTAT Chennai held that any refund claim is not maintainable in absence of any challenge to the assessment order as the refund authority cannot assume the role of an adjudicating / assessing authority.
