CESTAT held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007
Leading Point Powertronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Delhi South (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of CESTAT Delhi in Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner, CGST, Noida 2022 (380) ELT 219 (Tri.-All), held that interest on refund of amount deposited during investigation or deposited during pendency of appeal is allowable under Section 35EE of the […]
Refund claim seeking refund of the excess additional duty of customs paid during the period 26.03.2015 to 22.06.2015 was rightly sanctioned as there was no error on the part of either the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in sanctioning the refund without considering the limitation as both authorities were bound by the order of the Delhi High Court.
Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that general principles of interpretation of the exemption notification that it has to be construed strictly shall not really apply to the SEZ units which are otherwise exempted from the liability of the various duties under the […]
CESTAT Delhi held that jewellery is not liable to confiscation in the absence of any evidence that it is smuggled or it has been made by converting smuggled gold.
CESTAT Delhi held that invocation of extended period of limitation unsustainable as several rounds of audit was conducted and show cause notice for previous period on the same issued was already issued. Hence, department was fully aware of the issue in the question.
Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Siya Paper Mart Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. Facts- Notification no. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 has been issued to provide for refund of the SAD if […]
CESTAT Delhi held that the health care services are provided by the clinical establishments by engaging consultant doctors is exempted from service tax and cannot be taxed as business support service.
CESTAT Delhi held that manual breast pump has nothing to do with any medical or surgical procedures nor is it used by any medical practitioner hence the same is classifiable under CTH 39269090.
CESTAT Delhi held that the subsidy amount received under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 using VAT-37B challan cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act.
