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.
Held that the machines which are cleared after utilization cannot be treated as machines cleared as such. Accordingly, duty equal to cenvat credit not payable as prescribed under rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004
Held that Rule 16 allows the assessee to avail the cenvat credit of duty paid on the goods cleared by them, as if such goods are received as inputs
Revenue has not made out any case of mis-declaration and consequential undervaluation. Therefore, we find no merit in the re-determination of the value of the yacht and confirmation of differential duty thereon.
Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Refusal of SAD to the Appellant-importer by the Refund Sanctioning Authority that has received concurrence of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the second round of litigation is assailed in this appeal. The gist of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is that goods imported and goods […]
Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Ankit Enterprises (CESTAT Mumbai) Held that the goods have been imported, and presented, separately and independently; no evidence, other than conjecture about the conspiracy to disassemble branded products. Recovery of duty not sustainable. Facts- The assessees imported television sets, video compact disc (VCD) players, and music systems in disassembled form. […]
Savita Oil Technologies Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) The issue revolves around the alleged non-receipt of ‘inputs’ in excess of the tolerance margin of 0.4% at the facility of the appellant as evidenced by their own ‘goods receipt note (GRN)’ for the disputed period and the impugned order held that ‘8. The […]
Rejection of refund claim against pre-deposit, in compliance to Section 35F (Pre 2014 amendment)- Payment made towards discharge of duty confirmed alongwith interest and penalty was in the form of pre-deposit so as to acquire right of appeal and doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in respect of such deposit,
Explore the CESTAT Mumbai ruling in Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of GST case on CENVAT credit refund. Detailed analysis of eligibility, rejection reasons, and legal perspective.
