Karim Jaria Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT held that Reliance on statements alone is too fragile a foundation to build a case of undervaluation; such depositions are reliable only with corroborative support. In the absence of corroboration, test of cross-examination is of essence, as mandated by section 138B of Customs Act, 1962, for […]
Credit Suisse Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Admittedly as has been held in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST the last date for filing of such refund application is before 30.04.2018 or to say in specific terms on or before 29.04.2018, though the same is not […]
M/s Sim Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) Mismatch of description of goods in the import document and subsequent sale invoices that form the sole ground of rejection of refund claim of 4% SAD by the refund sanctioning authority that was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is assailed in this appeal. […]
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CESTAT Mumbai) Department urged a new ground, which was not even part of the allegations contained in the show cause notice nor part of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), that the definition of input contains an exclusion clause which excludes from the ambit of inputs all goods […]
Arcil Catalyst Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Where the rendering of the contracted service was to be contingent on readiness of the facility and that the purchase order for the goods to be imported was issued much after those terms of the service agreement was finalized, the rendering of service […]
Neno Crystal Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai) It would not be inappropriate to mention here that the Appellant’s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai-I Vs. M.R. Associates cited supra wherein it was clearly held that enhancement of value based on voluntary statement […]
We find there are different judicial forums who has held that high consumption of electricity by itself not a ground to infer suppression of production. The onus is on the department to prove allegation of clandestine removal with positive and concrete evidence.
Lehman Brothers Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) Merely because the appellant is still registered under the Companies Act and has not get the said registration cancelled does not mean that they are carrying out business activity. It is nowhere the case of the Revenue that […]
Scale Arts In Vs Commissioner of Customs (NS-IV) (CESTAT Mumbai) Difficulties, or commercial detriment, in complying with the sampling prescriptions is not justifiable ground for excluding the import consignment from the rigours of prescribed testing that is obligated on the importer by the Foreign Trade Policy. Indeed, the policy has afforded sufficient latitude for such […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai) First and foremost point to be considered is that whether Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 prohibits issue of two registration certificates for one and the same premises that formed the basis of the adjudication order? On a bare reading of Rule […]
