Appellant entitled to get cash refund against CENVAT Credit available to its credit during pre GST regime under Section 142(3) of CGST Act
Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited Vs Commissioner Of Customs Export (CESTAT Mumbai) On perusal of the date chart/list of events, as above, we find that as a sick company, the applicant was pursuing the matter before the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (special Provisions) Act, 1985. Further, on examination of the case records, we […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) Differential classification of same goods imported at different places would negate very purpose of Tariff Act CESTAT held that differential classification of the impugned goods imported at different places would negate the very purpose of the Tariff Act on the one hand and would cause avoidable […]
Held that department failed to brought on record independent evidence showing that the price of imported goods were over-valued. Accordingly, in the absence of contemporaneous imports, the transaction value cannot be discarded.
Held that no iota of evidence was submitted by Revenue regarding under valuation of goods and hence benefit given to the appellant.
Held that antecedents cannot be an evidence for the alleged undervaluation of the goods. At best antecedents may be a reason for creating a suspicion and be a reason for causing an enquiry or Investigation.
Held that a person from whom goods are seized has the right to seek provisional release immediately even as adjudication proceedings takes its own course.
Rosa Impex Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) In acceptance of the death of Managing Director and brain haemorrhage of the present Director of the Appellant Company as legal disability due to mental insanity, etc. delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned at this end by invoking the principle […]
Scania Commercial Vehicles India P Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case appellant had mis-classified the goods with an intention to evade payment of appropriate Custom duty. The appellant resorted to mis-classification / mis-declaration of description of goods showing number of packages as two instead of manifested number of packages as […]
Seafarer’s recruitment service provider, who processes the entire selection, medical test, insurance, transportation, training etc. to the overseas client and received convertible foreign exchange, is not an intermediary.
