CESTAT Mumbai held that bagasse being an agricultural waste/ residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. Accordingly, bagasse is not result of any manufacturing process
CESTAT Mumbai held that products Zymegold Plus and Dripzyme are classifiable under CTH 3101 as Fertilizer and not as Plant Growth Regulator.
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Mail Order Solutions (I) Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) The provisions regarding filing of appeals before the Tribunal are governed under the provisions of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Sub-section (1) ibid provides for filing of the appeal by an assessee before the Tribunal. The first proviso appended to sub-section […]
ThyssenKrupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CE & ST (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant undertake design, engineering, manufacture, supply, transport and erection & commissioning activities of various projects. They supply/sale duty-paid / non-duty paid materials, components, structural steel, parts, and machinery etc. for the said projects, which are either cleared from their manufacturing units or […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
The charge of under valuation cannot be established without challenging the assessment made by the assessing group as per the procedure prescribed. It is not the case where the goods where being cleared on the basis of the declared value but were being cleared on the basis of the assessed value on the payment of assessed duty.
Whether refund can be rejected without putting the appellant on notice for the ground on which refund was rejected. Insofar as the rejection of refund of Rs.13,77,971/- is concerned, the appellant were not issued with a show cause notice for the ground on which the same was rejected. The appellant did not get opportunity to present their case
Refund of Service Tax Cenvat credit was denied without issue of any show cause notice. Such an order is not sustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejecting exemption benefit and duty demand u/s 28 of Customs Act, 1962 by reassessing ‘cameras’ under general and residual description i.e. ‘others’ under 8525 8090 instead of declared specified classification i.e. 8525 8020 is unjustified.
CESTAT Mumbai held that there is no breach of regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) as the licence is sub-let and two employees of sub-let owner failed to dealt with export consignment.
