CESTAT set aside the order demanding excise duty and held that the buyer who has paid a valuable consideration could not be proceeded upon by taking the aid of a larger period of limitation as per Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unless it is proved that the buyer was also involved in fraud.
CESTAT Kolkata held that goods imported separately by two different importers cannot be clubbed for classification purpose. Goods imported by appellants not in CDK condition cannot be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87038040.
Learn about the landmark ruling of CESTAT Kolkata which stated that the processes of Re-Crystallisation and Distillation do not qualify as manufacture under the Central Excise Act, and the implications of this judgment on the appellant, Ganga Rasayanie.
Case summary of Jochan Michael vs. Commissioner of Customs where CESTAT Kolkata upheld the confiscation of foreign-origin gold biscuits despite an error in the recorded statement.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Low Aromatic White Spirit is rightly classifiable under the CTH 27101990 and not classifiable as ‘Light Oil and Preparations’ under CTH 27101239
Classification of non-textured fabrics must be based on nature and material coated as end use of a product could not be a criteria for classification, the other parameters such as the nature of cloth, nature of coating etc were required to be ascertained to classify the fabrics.
CESTAT held that where the differential duty paid by the assessee is available as CENVAT credit to the Assessee’s sister concern then it is a revenue-neutral situation. Thus, as duty was not actually payable, the payment of interest does not arise in the case of revenue neutral situation.
Explore the case of Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX, where CESTAT ruled on a Service Tax refund claim related to export freight charges.
Delve into the Vedanta Aluminium Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise case, where CESTAT Kolkata set aside an order rejecting a refund claim of service tax and ordered re-adjudication due to the absence of a stated reason in the original decision.
CESTAT Kolkata rules compensation received by Buyer on cancellation of Agreement to Sell immovable property not subject to Service Tax under Section 66E(e). Observes compensation for non-fulfillment by Seller doesn’t fall under ‘Declared Service’.
