As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
Jovex International Vs Commissioner, Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In this case applicable section for grant of interest is Section 35FF, which provides for grant of interest on the amount refundable pursuant to order of the Appellate Court. It is further provided in this section that interest should be granted from the date of deposit till […]
Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) Having considered the rival contentions, I hold that once the four companies have become one, by merger, under operation of law w.e.f. 01.01.2015, as per order of the competent Court, the transactions between them during the effective date and the date […]
Ajanta Overseas Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the power to recover the […]
Service of granting of mining rights provided by the Government would not fall under the category of ‘support services’ and after 01.04.2016 the liability was always cast upon the service recipient
PLG Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: The ‘coated paper’, as certified by the competent authority designated under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), did not conform to the description corresponding to sub-heading 8410.13 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The denial of the benefit of the concessional rate of duty […]
CESTAT held that the adjustment of the tax demand from the unutilized cenvat credit lying as on June 30, 2017 can be carried forward to the GST regime by the Assessee.
Show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer. Accordingly, duty demand fails. The proposal for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty cannot be segregated from the duty demand and, therefore, if the duty demand fails as the show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer, the proceedings for confiscation and penalty cannot survive.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere failure to pay Excise Duty, not due to fraud or wilful misstatement is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation and the Central Excise Officer should have issued notice within one year from the relevant date.
Deify Infrastructures Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s. Deify Infrastructures Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs [Final Order No. 51927/2021 dated October 27, 2021], held that the value of […]
