Rubal International Vs Commissioner of Customs (ICD, TKD) (CESTAT Delhi) I find that only few goods were found to be mismatch with the invoice and packing list. I further find that the appellant had given cogent explanation based on the statement and clarification of the shipper, via E-mail, clarifying that due to a large variety […]
Marina Enterprises Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly the appellant have sold the goods in India after importing and have paid sales tax on the said goods. Admittedly, they are registered with the Sales Tax Department having TIN number and have charged sales tax in their sales […]
Refund of CVD and SAD in question is allowable, as credit is no longer available under the GST regime, which was however available under the erstwhile regime of Central Excise prior to 30.06.2017. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act.
Elegant Developers Vs The Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) It is observed that original Adjudicating Authority has awarded interest at the rate of five per cent. The said rate is the lowest rate in the amended Section 35FF. The amount in question is not an amount of duty but was an amount paid […]
Scot Innovations Wires & Cables Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods, Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in UoI vs. Slovak India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.) =2008 (10) STR 101 (Kar.) has held that in the absence of any express prohibitory provisions, unutilised credit […]
Jai Mateshwaari Steels Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST- Dehradun (CESTAT Delhi) Section 142(3) of CGST Act, provides that after the appointed day (30th June 2017) every claim for refund of any duty, tax, interest, etc., under the existing law shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the existing law and any amount […]
Benefit of extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue in the present matters, there being no element of fraud, mis-statement or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant.
Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Vs Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, it is true that no service tax was chargeable on the activity of the appellant, viz., carrying the advertisements in its broadcast and telecast. Therefore, the Government cannot collect service tax. It is also true that Section […]
Beverly Hills Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) After considering written submission of the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order has held that the appellant had attempted to clear goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 6374054 dt. 14.05.2018 through non-notified ICD/ Port in violations of the provisions contained in Rule […]
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & GST (CESTAT Delhi) Learned Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that they had purchased a generator set in the year 2004 which was used by them at their Jaipur plant. After 12 years of its use, since the Jaipur plant got closed that the said […]
