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.
Held that para 2 of Circular 35/2017-Cus is clearly contrary to Section 110 A and is, consequently, void and unenforceable at law. It is not permissible for the CBEC, by executive fiat, to incorporate limitations, on provisional release of seized goods, which find no place in the parent statutory provision, i.e. Section 110 A of the Act.
Neither the submissions during the hearing nor the records of the proceedings before the lower authorities indicated correct segregation of credit taken on ‘input services’ between eligible and ineligible except to the extent that the formula had to be resorted to, therefore, the re-computation of segregation of credit restored to the original authority before whom the accountal of credit taken on ‘input service’ should be furnished by the appellant herein and to which the ratio in the formula was to be applied.
Yara Fertilizers India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Introduction: The case of Yara Fertilizers India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, adjudicated by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai, revolves around the classification dispute of the imported product ‘yaravita zintrac (zinc oxide suspension concentrate).’ The disagreement stems from […]
