CESTAT observe that pre-delivery inspection charges are includible in the assessable value when such pre-delivery inspection is mandatory and an essential condition for the sale of the goods
Words ‘without utilizing Cenvat Credit’ in Rule 8(3A) are ultra vires which means that assessee can discharge duty by utilizing Cenvat Credit.
Beekay Steel Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) We find that the Ld. Commissioner in the denovo Order-in-original which is also the order impugned has recorded that the details of invoices mentioned in the documents submitted by the assessee were matched with the copies of invoices submitted and were found to […]
Comet Technocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & S. Tax (CESTAT Kolkata) The issue here is very short. The assessee sent materials to diverse job workers for manufacture of the final product. Only inspection of the finished goods was carried out at the premises of the assessee. If the job workers are proved […]
CESTAT Kolkata held that customs broker cannot be alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) for non-existence of the exporter at the address. Customs Broker is no required to carry out physical verification of the address of the exporter to met his obligation under Regulation 10(n).
CESTAT Kolkata held that based on Doctrine of Substantial Compliance, exemption benefit of notification no. 23/2004 dated 09.07.2004 and 5/2006 dated 01.03.2006 cannot be denied.
mens rea is an important ingredient for imposing penalty on the persons enumerated in Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT find that the demand in the instant case has been raised for contravention of Rule 8(3A) ibid restricting utilization of Cenvat credit during the period of default which provision has been declared ultra vires/invalid by Court, hence the demand cannot be sustained and the Appeal, thus, succeed on this count.
Mere fact that foreign origin of goods does not ipso facto lead to inevitable conclusion that the same are of smuggled character
CESTAT Kolkata held that central excise duty demand not sustainable as there was no under-valuation in the costing of the product i.e. footwear components.
