Commissioner of Customs Vs Pidilite Industries Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) It is seen that the first appellate authority has interpreted the time limit in section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 according to the letter of the law which mandates liability of interest for any delay in sanction of refund beyond three months from date of claim. […]
Siba International Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant-Exporter Siba International was engaged in export of processed buffalo meat after procuring the same from M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods, Moradabad (UP) an approved processing plant for export of boneless buffalo meat as a prescribed condition under Chapter […]
Kellogg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of breakfast cereals and avails the CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services used in relation to the manufacture of their final products. From the perusal […]
Desai and Diwanji Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) It was held in that decision that in the event of centralised billing and centralised accounting system, when one registration is permissible under Section 4(2), discharging Service Tax liability from the registered premises would not disentitled the benefits of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid […]
As appellant had not taken registration and had not filed ST-3 returns within the prescribed time, penalty imposed under Section 77 was justified.
Manikgarh Cement Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) As could be noticed from para 24 of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority had observed that Welding Electrodes and D.A. Gas were used in the cement manufacturing plant of the Appellant for the purpose of repair and maintenance of its plant and machinery. This being observation […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that used mild steel (MS) plates industrial significance only as waste and scrap which is the feedstock for melting in furnaces and hence classifiable as waste and scrap.
CESTAT Mumbai held that when cenvat credit of only that quantity of input is availed which was intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there is no question of invoking provisions of rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Mumbai held that the provisions of service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, set aside tax recovery from M/s Singapore Airlines as deemed provider of online information data base access or retrieval service.
CESTAT Mumbai held that with the recovery of duty, imports stand regularized and hence section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 becomes inapplicable. Accordingly, confiscation and penalty set aside.
