CESTAT Mumbai allows CENVAT credit for services related to manufacturing and clearing final products up to the place of removal. A critical analysis of the JSW Steel Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise case.
Thyssenkrupp System Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. triumphs in CESTAT Mumbai, successfully challenging service tax demand. Key details of the case explained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that in either of the three options given in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, there is no provisions that if the assessee does not opt any of the option at a particular time, then option of payment of 5% will automatically be applied. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 may be invoked only upon material particulars being misdeclared and this detriment is in addition to duty liability determined under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unless a Trade Mark/ Brand Name is registered in the name of the assessee, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notification.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand to be unsustainable as even though belatedly the appellant has availed option provided under rule 6 and reversed the relevant cenvat credit along with interest. Concluded that even post-clearance compliance of stipulations precluded denial of an entitlement available otherwise.
CESTAT Mumbai imposed penalty on customs broker for failure in not being proactive in fulfilling their obligation by failing to bring to the notice of the Customs department about the non-compliances in export transactions.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘interface card’ is classifiable under customs tariff it 8517 7010 and not under customs tariff item 8517 6290. Accordingly, demand of differential duty set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of benefit of notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2004 owing to reversal of CENVAT Credit needs to be examined by lower authorities. Accordingly, matter restored back to original authority for fresh determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as differential duty was paid with interest on expiry of export obligation period, there is no violation of the conditions of Advance License under Notification no. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 and hence redemption fine and penalty set aside.
