When there is no suppression of facts or mis-declaration, extended period is not invokable and the demand has to be held to be barred by time.
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) A show cause notice dated 24.01.2020 was then issued to the appellant proposing to revoke the Customs Broker License of the appellant by considering the show cause notice dated 22.10.2019 issued under the provisions of the Customs Act as the offence report. The appellant […]
CENVAT credit allowed to the extent inputs are used for production of electricity which is transferred free of cost to its sister unit.
CESTAT held that, the appellant is entitled to interest at specified rate from date of deposit to date of refund. BBM Impex Pvt. Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro Limited, wherein the amount was deposited during the stage of investigation/audit, this Tribunal have held that on being successful in appeal, interest is allowable under Section 35FF from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Further, […]
Girish Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) On facts, the role of appellant was only to arrange meeting between Devi Das and Habib-uz-Zaman and the appellant neither filed the bill of entry or was involved in clearance of goods. Any action on the part of appellant much before the import of goods could […]
Pegasus Pharmaco India Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) a) Balaji has not commenced commercial production prior to the cut-off date of 31.3.2010 even though a single invoice was issued and therefore, it was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification nor has it claimed it until a […]
Held that duty demand, alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of chewing tobacco, on the basis of assumption and presumption is not permissible
Interest on delayed refund of amount would continue to be governed by the unamended provisions of section 35FF as the amended provisions of section 35F would not apply if stay applications and appeals were pending before the Tribunal prior to 06.08.2014.
Whether, on finalization of provisional assessment, the Respondent was entitled to deduction of discounts known at the time of clearance of goods from the depot but quantified later on and Whether request for provisional assessment has rightly been rejected?
