CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellants are not liable to pay service tax, provisions of section 70 of the Service Tax Act are not applicable. Hence, penalty for filing of service tax return belatedly is unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant being a subsequent purchaser of the goods from the M/s Philips India who had allegedly purchased the imported the goods hence confirmation of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 is not applicable to the waste products which arises during the process of manufacture and is sold for some consideration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund on inputs in respect of Club or Association Services, Services by Air-conditioned Restaurants, Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services, Mandap Keeper Services, Convention Services, Cable Operator Services and for Sponsorship Services as well as Event Management Services were already allowed to the appellant in earlier period. Hence the same is allowed here as well.
Sai Charan Tours & Travels Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The only issue before us is the mandate to produce the certificate insisted upon as condition for provisional release from among the prescriptions in the licencing notes pertaining to imported vehicles. The Tribunal, in Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, […]
Denial of Cenvat credit can be done only by issuing notice under Rule 14 and the department could not reject refund of Cenvat credit solely under Rule 5. Since the availability of credit had not been questioned by the department herein by issuing show cause notice in terms of Rule 14 ibid, the refund benefit could not be denied on the ground of non-establishment of nexus between input and the output services
CESTAT Mumbai held that there are no allegations/ evidence that demonstrate that the customs broker didnt demonstrate speed and efficiency in respect of the impugned goods and hence there is no contravention of regulation 10(n) of Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018
Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs Commissioner Of CGST & CE (CESTAT Mumbai) The only objection which has been raised is to the word ‘building’ used in the Notification No 25/2012-ST whereas appellant are claiming exemption in respect of shop and flats purchased by them from the M/s Yog Reality. In the impugned order […]
Circular No. 11/2016-Cus. dated 15.03.2016 has not personified any violator individually since it had categorically stated that cases involving seizer and confiscation would be out of the purview of the Circular and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner in allowing the benefit contained in Section 28(6)(i) to the importer company and its Managing Director and denying the same to the Appellant CHA who is charged under same penal provisions under Section 112, 114(A), 114(A)(A) in the same case is unsustainable in law and equity.
Murli Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) It is not disputed that the Resolution Plan for the appellant company was approved by Learned NCLT vide its orders dated 3.7.2019 and 22.7.2019. As per Section 31(1) of I&B Code, once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the […]
