Held that service provider is entitled for refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when output service is exported. The said rule 5 doesn’t stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund.
Sky Airways Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Customs Duty Paid Voluntarily During Investigation cannot be claimed as refund when CESTAT remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) in the matter of Sky Airways v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi [Final Order […]
Mehta Metal Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant assessee who is operating under ‘Compounded Levy Scheme’ is entitled pro-rata abatement/refund of duty for the period during which the machine admittedly was inoperative. CESTAT held that there is no dispute with regard […]
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 […]
