CESTAT held that Axe Brand Universal Oil classifiable under Chapter 30 as it is similar to Amrutanjan, Vicks, Tiger Balm which were held to be classifiable under Chapter 30 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise – 1995 (77) ELT 500 (SC).
CESTAT held that denial of credit alleging that invoices mention the name of the original importer is too technical and cannot be accepted.
Neha Agrawal Carboline India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Facts: i. The appellant had exported ‘Paint for fire proofing THERMO Lag 3000 SP’ vide 2 shipping bills dated 18.04.2018 and 02.05.2018. ii. Two Advance authorisations (AA) dated 09.04.2018 & 02.05.2018 were obtained for duty free import of raw materials with an export […]
Revenue has only alleged about the switching of samples, but has nowhere established how and where the switching had taken place since, admittedly, right from day one, the goods were at the godown of the CFS, the accessibility of which may not be that easy.
ITAT condones Delay in Appeal filing as appellant could not file appeal within time stipulated due to death of his counsel
CESTAT set aside order of Revenue Department demanding service tax on Ocean Freight Charges under Business Support Services.
CESTAT held that the revaluation of the goods which are not subjected to BIS specifications was made in arbitrary manner and was not adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant then sought for refund of the service tax paid by them to the tune of Rs.11,60,968/- on the ground that no services were provided by the German company to them and that the amount having been refunded to them, they […]
CESTAT set aside the impugned order pertaining to the rejection of refund of unutilized cenvat credit of Education Cess, SHEC and KKC
Vestas Technology R&D Chennai Private Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) During the course of hearing learned consultant for the appellants could not produce documents to prove that the claims filed by the appellants were in time as enunciated by the larger Bench in the case of M/s. Span Infotech India […]
