Murli Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) It is not disputed that the Resolution Plan for the appellant company was approved by Learned NCLT vide its orders dated 3.7.2019 and 22.7.2019. As per Section 31(1) of I&B Code, once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that settled classification may be unsettled only by the argument of inapplicability owing to the distinguishable nature of the product. Accordingly, benefit of exemption from additional duties of customs allowed to hard disk drives.
Manikgarh Cement Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The question that arises is whether ‘welding electrodes’ are ‘consumables’ as held by the original authority or are used in the manufacture of excisable goods and, therefore, eligible for MODVAT credit as claimed by the assessee. It is the claim of the appellant that within ‘capital […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of taking credit of the duties is undisputable and also there was procedural aberration in such case refund of credit by cash eligible u/s 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act.
CESTAT Mumbai held that without evincing illicit trafficking of the impugned goods and presuming the same as smuggled goods deprives legal sanctity.
CESTAT Mumbai held that amended rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 prescribes the formula for claiming refund of service tax by the service provider. Under such amended rule in vogue, there is no requirement of satisfying the nexus between the input service and the output service and hence order rejecting refund claim for the finding on nexus is not in accordance with law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that for the same period excise duty is demanding alleging that activities undertaken by the appellants do amount to manufacture of Prefabricated building i.e. Green House and also service tax on activity of erection and commission of Greenhouse and Polyhouse at site. Accordingly, held that to ascertain the position, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
CESTAT Mumbai held that penalty under rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be levied only if it is found that the concerned person have dealt with the goods in any manner which they knew are liable to confiscation. Role of co-noticee proved and hence penalty justifiable.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Thermax Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai) On perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent had procured duty paid inputs on which CENVAT credit was availed but cleared the goods, as such, on a sale value which was higher than the purchase CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provide for clearance of […]
CESTAT observed that the products in question would be classifiable under CTH 85177090 and not CTH 85176290 based on HSN and the Departmental Circular could not run contrary to the Judicial Pronouncements.
