In present facts of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal gave directions to dispose of the refund applications within 3 months after the filing of new refund application on the basis of observations made on procedure of refund applications.
Tribunal opined that the alleged non-payment cannot be called as willful or intentional act of the appellant to evade the payment of duty. Lastly, it was adjudged that it is the burden of the Revenue to prove whether the Assessee has intended to conduct evasion.
Since the Custom Broker was liable to verify genuineness of importer-exporter code, IEC number, identity of client to prevent facilitation of export prohibited goods, therefore, custom broker was liable for penalty in case of breach of KYC norms and mandatory obligations under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
Bharat Mines & Minerals Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Customs & Central (CESTAT Delhi) I find that the invoices in question were issued by the Chartered Accountant- Anuj Maheshwari and Company, copy of which is available in the appeal record. The invoices reads as ‘professional consultancy for export against export consignment as per […]
Minda D-Ten Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) The Bluetooth module receives radio frequency analog signals from other devices (like mobile phone), converts the radio frequency analog signals into digital signals and thereafter transmits the signals back to the Bluetooth module of mobile phone (in radio frequency signal form) or to the […]
Case New Holland Construction Equipment (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) ‘Input service’ either prior to 01.04.2011 or w.e.f. 01.04.2011 means any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The appellant is under an obligation to provide after sale service […]
Indore Treasure Market City Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) We turn our attention to the other issues like time bar and availability of credit to the appellant. The appellant submits that it had been regularly filing the ST-3 Returns and as such nothing was suppressed by it so as to invoke of the […]
Chittor Polyfab Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The circular dated 08.06.2018 also cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the period in question (April 2015 to June, 2017). At the relevant time, circular No. 988/12/2014 CX dated 20.10.2014 / Circular No. 97/8/2007-CX dated 23.8.2007 were applicable. It has […]
Online Cargo Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT upheld validity of Order passed after 90 days under regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 In the case of M/S Online Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51120 OF 2020], the Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the CESTAT) passed an interim order […]
Mere dispatch of the order cannot be considered as service. The period of 2 months for filing the appeal has to reckon not from the date of order announced but from the date of receipt of said order by the assessee in terms of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
