CESTAT Mumbai

Refund claim allowed despite non-filing of ST-3 return for claim period

Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

Blue River Capital India Advisory Services LLP Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- Refund claim filed by the appellant is rejected on various grounds like- -For the refund claim period no ST-3 return was filed. -Services allegedly exported by the appellant were not used outside India. -Some input tax credit...

Read More

Custom duty refund due to re-assessment of Bills of Entry cannot be denied merely for not filing appeal

Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)

Brightpoint India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs Mumbai (Air Cargo Import) (CESTAT Mumbai) The Revenue against the sanction of the refund which arose out of re-assessment of the Bills of Entry, filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal by holding that since the appellants have...

Read More

Refund of Service Tax Paid under Protest without challenging the assessment proceedings cannot be denied

M/s. Shri Javed Akhtar Vs CCGST, Mumbai West (CESTAT Mumbai)

Javed Akhtar Vs CCGST, Mumbai West (CESTAT Mumbai) The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for refund of service tax paid under protest without challenging the assessment proceedings, which was held to be not payable by authorities concerned in an appeal of another assessee of the very same transaction? The ...

Read More

Proposal for confiscation & penalty cannot be segregated from custom duty demand

Dhiren Enterprise Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) (CESTAT Mumbai)

CESTAT ruled that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and therefore the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained....

Read More

Permanent IEC can be used for import of goods for personal use not connected with manufacture or agriculture

Subodh Menon Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)

The order of confiscation with an option for redemption fine and penalty for importer not having Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number is invalid as there is no violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC....

Read More

Pre-delivery inspection & after sales service charges not includible in assessable value of motor vehicles

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the cost of Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sale Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the ...

Read More

Proceedings for confiscation & penalty not sustainable once duty demand dropped

Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai)

Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice. Conclusion– The Supreme Court ob...

Read More

No excise duty on generation of aluminium dross & skimming of aluminium castings/parts of motor vehicles

Tata Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

Tata Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Excise duty shall not be imposed on the generation of aluminum dross and skimming in the manufacture of aluminum castings/parts of motor vehicles. Held: The issue arose for consideration was whether the aluminum dross and skimming arising out of the manufact...

Read More

Excise Duty not payable by Job Worker on work undertaken which forms part of manufacturing process

Mechasoft Vs Commissioner of C.G.ST. (CESTAT Mumbai)

Mechasoft Vs Commissioner of C.G.ST. (CESTAT Mumbai) Notification No. 214/86-CE (NT) though was effective from April 1996 has been amended extensively vide Notification No. 49/2002 dated 16.09.2002 so as to make the manufacturer accountable for discharging his obligation in respect of goods under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. A...

Read More

Statutory right to appeal cannot be defeated by drawing a presumption about service of order

Sunbright Cement Agencies Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner (Appeals), Service Tax-II, Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai)

Sunbright Cement Agencies Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) (CESTAT Mumbai) What is important to note is that even the initial period of three months provided for in sub-section (3) of section 85 of the Finance Act for presenting an appeal begins to run from the date of receipt of the order. The order was received […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,816)
Company Law (7,832)
Custom Duty (8,857)
DGFT (4,673)
Excise Duty (4,567)
Fema / RBI (4,906)
Finance (5,292)
Income Tax (39,010)
SEBI (4,225)
Service Tax (3,829)

Search Posts by Date

December 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031