CESTAT Mumbai held that confirmation of differential duty necessarily has interest liability appended to it Accordingly liability to pay interest on duties short-paid at the time of clearance of goods for captive consumption does not get erased.
Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) These appeals of M/s Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd, against order-in-original no. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/AK/42-43/2020-21 dated 26th February 2021 of Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, arise from the unique deployment of constituents, that make up channel entities involved in exhibition of cinematographic films, in an arrangement by which […]
Reliance Mediaworks Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST (CESTAT Mumbai) The arrangement most commonly entered into between a theater owner and a distributor is that the theater owner screens the movie for fixed number of days under a contract. The proceeds earned through sale of tickets go to the distributor but the theatre owner receives a […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposing late fee charges on filing of new Bill of Entry, as old Bill of Entry got purged and erased in ICEGATE, is unsustainable in law.
Refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules also being a refund under section 11B would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 11BB and interest is payable in case of delay in sanctioning the refund under Rule 5
Reliance Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT Mumbai held that insurance premium paid for group insurance to cover employees opting for Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) amounts to input service and accordingly cenvat credit available under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Facts- The appellant, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, manufacturer of […]
B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant manufactures silos for storage of food grains. Custom made silos based on purchase orders placed by customers. It classified under chapter heading 84379090. Revenue contended it is a “prefabricated building” falling under chapter heading 94060099. Show cause notices were issued and […]
CESTAT held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
Parts in issue herein have been used for smooth and efficient functioning of machinery which has been used for manufacturing Sugar and Molasses and therefore there is no reason not to allow Cenvat credit
CESTAT Mumbai held that notification no. 27/2012/CE (NT) dated 18th June 2012 for operationalizing of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 include debiting of the claim amount before submission of application for the same. Refund rejected for failure to furnish proof of the availability of credit till the date of write off.
