Follow Us:

CESTAT Delhi

HC remanded case back to adjudicating authority to quantify admissible credit

September 1, 2021 954 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

Beneficial circular cannot be retrospectively withdrawn

August 28, 2021 2520 Views 0 comment Print

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 […]

Order passed by the Commissioner cannot be set aside merely it was time barred

August 27, 2021 2373 Views 1 comment Print

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 order cannot be considered as service

August 18, 2021 4686 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Amount deposited in PLA account not become duty or tax unless appropriated

August 16, 2021 4365 Views 0 comment Print

WMW Metal Fabrics Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) There is a distinction between the amount appropriated towards duty and amount deposited for payment of a duty. In a former case duty which has been levied and paid subsequently becomes the property of the Government and no person would be entitled to get it back […]

Importer not liable for error in generation of Bill of Entry on ICEGATE Portal

August 13, 2021 4818 Views 0 comment Print

Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs M. D. Overseas Limited (CESTAT Delhi) In this case Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had set aside the Assessment Order (AO) passed on the three Bills of Entry (BoE) with a further direction for re-assessment of the rate of Basic Customs Duty applicable on the given BoE to the Department. M/s M. […]

Suppression of facts has to be “Wilful” for recovery of CENVAT Credit

August 11, 2021 8427 Views 0 comment Print

Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST (CESTAT Delhi) M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (Appellant) has filed the current appeal for quashing Order-In-Original No. DLI-SVTAX-001-COM-054-16-17 dated March 31, 2017 (OIO) which confirmed recovery of Central Value Added Tax Credit “CENVAT Credit) along with interest and penalty under Section 73(1) of the […]

Service tax excess paid and which could not be adjusted owing to transition to GST is refundable to assessee and limitation cannot be cited for denial

August 10, 2021 1158 Views 0 comment Print

Manoj Vijay Vs Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Since post July 01, 2017, the applicability of Rule 6 (4A) of Central Excise Rules was no more available to the appellant, the excess amount already got deposited by the appellant at the time when Service Tax liability for the said quarter had not […]

Giving of loans by Banks to Borrowers is not a service

August 9, 2021 3252 Views 0 comment Print

State Bank of Patiala Vs Commissioner, Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant urges that the show cause notice is misconceived, as prima facie giving of loans is not an output service, rather money in real terms somewhat akin to goods, goes out of the bank when the loan is advanced. […]

Period of Limitation increased to 18 Months w.e.f. 28.05.2012

August 4, 2021 4683 Views 0 comment Print

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Baran Vs Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Division (CESTAT Delhi) There is no dispute that the relevant date in the present case is 25.11.2012. Prior to this date on 28.05.2012, section 73(1) of the Finance Act was amended and it was provided that the Central Excise Officer could issue a notice […]

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031