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 […]
Dive into the dispute of Acmechem Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai). Explore challenges to value rejection, breaches of natural justice, and a crucial assessment analysis.
Matter of classification is complex. According, held that there is no scope for indicting the individuals in these proceedings for deliberate misdeclaration. Penalty not imposed as the role of the individuals in the misdeclaration of stores and bunkers is not evident in the impugned order.
CESTAT held that mere short payment of duty by the appellant is not sufficient in order to invoke the extended period.
Goods are not Digital Inkjet Printers or that the goods are not capable of being connected to ADP or network and therefore is not classifiable under 8443 32 50 is against clarification given by CBIC
Custom brokers are required to conduct all possible enquiries through independent reliable sources/ documents to verify the credentials of the clients. No such effort made by the appellant proves that they have failed to observe due diligence in this regard.
When the unit was de-bonded and no dues certificate was issued to the assessee, it was the duty of the officer, who gave no dues certificate to verify the contents whether any dues liability was pending against the assessee or he had correctly declared the true facts for de-bonding of unit. When the concerned officer had de-bonded the unit along with no dues certificate, allegation of suppression could not be alleged against assessee in this case.
