Indian Overseas Bank Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Chennai) Revenue is of the opinion that only if the loan is in the form of Indian rupee and interest is earned on that, then alone under the provisions of Valuation Rules or Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 interest is not to be […]
The facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the business as freight forwarders and provide worldwide containerised and conventional cargo transportation and logistics services. During audit of accounts, it was noticed that besides collecting various charges, such as documentation charges, examination charges, freight charges, appellants also collected amount towards purchasing of cargo space from shipping lines.
The appellant filed a Bill-of-Entry No. 6280158 dated 07.05.2018 for the clearance of ‘Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras’ and since the goods were of Korean origin, the appellant, under the self-assessment scheme, assessed the same at ‘Nil’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) in terms of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. (Sl. No. 833) dated 31. 12.2009
In this case, the Hon’ble Tribunal decided in favour of the Appellant with respect to availability of the Cenvat Credit. Once it is admitted fact that the Appellant was eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of the duties i.e., CVD and SAD, the Appellant is eligible to claim refund of the said Cenvat Credit in terms of Section 142(6) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The appellant is providing financial services and gives loans. For recovery of loans, the appellant collects post-dated cheques. There are instances when post-dated cheques after being presented to bank get dishonoured. The bank collects charges for dishonouring of the cheques. Such charges are recovered by the appellant from their clients. It appeared to Revenue that such charges should be included in the assessable value for levy of service tax. Therefore, proceedings were initiated which culminated into passing of the impugned order.
M/s Broekman Logistics India) Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) Appellant is authorized to carry out the operations by setting up a unit in the FTWZ zone. They have been rendering Storage and Warehousing services predominantly to foreign customers. On the charges collected for services rendered to Indian customers, the appellants […]
LCD panels are classifiable under CTH 9013 8010 and parts of LCD panels are classifiable under CTH 9013 9010. Denial of exemption benefit to the appellant as per amendment Notification No. 92/2017-Cus. dated 14.12.2017 was without any factual or legal basis.
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and beverages which are sold under the brand ‘Nimbooz’ from March 2009 onwards. The issue under consideration is classification of ‘Nimbooz’.
Modfurn Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Green Signals Use of CA Certificate, Validating The Non-Transfer of tax liability to another, as Evidence It has been ruled that the Certificate of Chartered Accountant that categorically declares that the tax liability has not been turned over to another can […]
Ramco Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Appellants are with the suppliers of fly ash. It is seen that appellants are installing PDFACS systems in the factories of thermal plants and contract for maintenance providing man power etc. is given to the respective suppliers. These suppliers do maintain such systems and transport […]
