Kanam Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) The facts of the case are that the appellant had imported rubber gloves in bulk. The original authority had directed them to indicate MRP on the packets of imported rubber gloves and assessed the goods to additional duty of customs in terms of Central […]
The goods imported such as main PCB, lightning protector, DC/AC cables, fuse holders are neither parts nor accessories of Integrated Fixed Wireless Telephones ( IFWT )could not be considered as accessory as these parts were not used to increase the effectiveness or convenience of IFWT. Therefore, the goods imported were neither parts nor accessories of IFWT and therefore could not avail the benefit of notification for Customs duty exemption.
Appellant is eligible for refund even though condition 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 not been complied
When the tax is paid under reverse charge mechanism, appellant would be entitled to avail credit of same, which leads to a revenue neutral situation
Innasimuthu Package Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue in all these appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In these appeals, the issue relates to applicability of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006.at Sl. No. 72 which deals with the […]
Service tax paid by automotive dealers was availed as Cenvat credit by appellant availment of such credit is in conformity with Cenvat Rules
Tansi Pump Unit Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts are that the appellants are registered as manufacturer of hand-pumps, EB line material, Benches, Desks etc. They availed small scale exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 and after crossing the exemption limit were clearing the products on payment of duty. Appellant […]
S. Vaidya and Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed three refund claims for refund of SAD amount of Rs.10,97,996/-. After scrutinizing the documents, the adjudicating authority observed that the sales invoices were not endorsed with the mandatory declaration that “no cenvat credit can be […]
Whether appellants liable to pay service tax on consideration received for construction services which are composite in nature including both supply of materials and provision of services for the period prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT held that when Tribunal given a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to appellant, Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated demand after granting benefit.
