CESTAT ruled that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and therefore the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
The order of confiscation with an option for redemption fine and penalty for importer not having Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number is invalid as there is no violation of procedure under Foreign Trade Policy if goods imported for personal use against Bill of Entry without having IEC.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the cost of Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sale Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the […]
Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice. Conclusion– The Supreme Court observed that the […]
Tata Motors Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Excise duty shall not be imposed on the generation of aluminum dross and skimming in the manufacture of aluminum castings/parts of motor vehicles. Held: The issue arose for consideration was whether the aluminum dross and skimming arising out of the manufacture of aluminum motor […]
Mechasoft Vs Commissioner of C.G.ST. (CESTAT Mumbai) Notification No. 214/86-CE (NT) though was effective from April 1996 has been amended extensively vide Notification No. 49/2002 dated 16.09.2002 so as to make the manufacturer accountable for discharging his obligation in respect of goods under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. As such when the […]
Sunbright Cement Agencies Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) (CESTAT Mumbai) What is important to note is that even the initial period of three months provided for in sub-section (3) of section 85 of the Finance Act for presenting an appeal begins to run from the date of receipt of the order. The order was received […]
Autobahn Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) Service Tax not leviable on discounts offered by car manufacturers to their dealers for onward transmission to corporate customers Autobahn Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) was an authorized dealer of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd. and in accordance with their agreements, the Appellant was […]
Nathi Mal Rugan Mal Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellants claim that they have cooperated with the investigation and have deposited Rs. 70,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) towards the duty liability, if any, that may arise on the past imports after completion of investigation; in respect of the impugned goods also they have […]
The Appellant failing to pay its Service Tax Liability under RCM in a stipulated time but shown as liability in the Service tax Return under the Finance Act, 1994, which was repealed and was replaced by the Goods and Services Tax
