Loading...

More Judgements

2018-VIL-126-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Life Insurance and Management of investment under ULIP service - assessee provided taxable as well as exempted services but failed to comply with provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 – assessee aggrieved by imposition penalty under Section 76 – revenue appeal on the ground that the original authority erred in not considering the non-taxable portion of premium as consideration for exempted service while arriving at the 8 per cent classification for reversal under Rule 6(3) – HELD – The amount which is ordered to be paid by the assessee in terms of Rule 6 (3) cannot be considered as a Service Tax - Furth... [Read more]

Service Tax - Life Insurance and Management of investment under ULIP service - assessee provided taxable as well as exempted services but failed to comply with provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 – assessee aggrieved by imposition penalty under Section 76 – revenue appeal on the ground that the original authority erred in not considering the non-taxable portion of premium as consideration for exempted service while arriving at the 8 per cent classification for reversal under Rule 6(3) – HELD – The amount which is ordered to be paid by the assessee in terms of Rule 6 (3) cannot be considered as a Service Tax - Further, the payment of the said 8 per cent of value of exempted service is to be made by reversing the credit available in the books of the assessee. In case such reversal is not possible then the amount to be paid can be recovered in terms of Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004. This makes it clear that the amount so calculated under Rule 6 (3) is not a Service Tax and failure to pay such will not attracts the penalty under Section 76. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order with reference to imposition of penalty under Section 76 is set aside – we are in agreement with the method of calculation adopted by the Original Authority in arriving at the portion of exempted service/ taxable service - the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-130-CESTAT-DEL-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Assessee availed irregular Cenvat Credit on construction services during the period April 2011 to December 2011 - credit so availed was duly reflected in their Cenvat credit account as also in ER-1 returns – duty demand by invoking extended period – HELD - when the returns are reflecting the credit, this leads to inevitable fact that the credit stands reflected in the Cenvat credit account - The argument of the revenue that in the self assessment era, the appellant should have claimed the credit in accordance with law is too general an argument. If the same is accepted, the provisions of proviso to Sectio... [Read more]

Service Tax - Assessee availed irregular Cenvat Credit on construction services during the period April 2011 to December 2011 - credit so availed was duly reflected in their Cenvat credit account as also in ER-1 returns – duty demand by invoking extended period – HELD - when the returns are reflecting the credit, this leads to inevitable fact that the credit stands reflected in the Cenvat credit account - The argument of the revenue that in the self assessment era, the appellant should have claimed the credit in accordance with law is too general an argument. If the same is accepted, the provisions of proviso to Section 11A would become redundant and otiose – revenue fairly agreed that there is no column in ER-1 return to give the break up of various input services, thus casting no obligation on the part of the assessee to give the details of the input service in which such credit stands availed. Such details would be available in RG 23A Part I & Part II accounts being maintained by the appellant and the Revenue is within it powers and jurisdiction to seek such information as regards the input service, if in doubt. The appellant cannot be held guilty of any mala fide suppression or mis-statement - the demand as being barred by limitation is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-129-CESTAT-CHE-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn - SCN invoking larger period demanding duty on the ground that cotton waste generated out of duty free imported raw cotton was over and above the permissible limit of 25% - duty demand on imported raw cotton by denying exemption under Notification No.53/97-Cus – aggrieved assessee in appeal - HELD - once the manufactured goods which are excisable are allowed to be sold in accordance with Exim Policy no demand of customs duty can be raised. In the present case cotton waste which is cleared to DTA is an excisable goods falling under Chapter heading... [Read more]

Customs - appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn - SCN invoking larger period demanding duty on the ground that cotton waste generated out of duty free imported raw cotton was over and above the permissible limit of 25% - duty demand on imported raw cotton by denying exemption under Notification No.53/97-Cus – aggrieved assessee in appeal - HELD - once the manufactured goods which are excisable are allowed to be sold in accordance with Exim Policy no demand of customs duty can be raised. In the present case cotton waste which is cleared to DTA is an excisable goods falling under Chapter heading 52.02 of CETA, 1985. The said clearance of waste is also permissible as per para 6.8(d) of the Exim Policy 2002-07 within the overall limit of 50% of the FOB value. Hence the present demand of duty is untenable under the Notification No. 53/97-Cus. dated 03.06.1997 – further, the permissible waste as per Exim Policy has to be computed on the imported cotton and not on the imported cotton consumed - In absence of any malafide being brought on to record, appellant cannot be suspected to have made any undue gain - The impugned order is set aside and assessee appeal is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-127-CESTAT-CHD-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – Area Based Exemption - appellant started their production in different units in the same factory having different inputs for manufacturing different final products but sharing common facilities - whether all the units located in the same factory can be treated a separate unit in terms of the Notification No.50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003 – denial of exemption to unit No.3 by relying on the circular No.939/29/2010-CX dated 22.12.2010 on the ground that unit No.III is just an addition to the existing Unit and it cannot be considered as an independent unit - Term ‘factory’ and ‘industrial unit’ – HEL... [Read more]

Central Excise – Area Based Exemption - appellant started their production in different units in the same factory having different inputs for manufacturing different final products but sharing common facilities - whether all the units located in the same factory can be treated a separate unit in terms of the Notification No.50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003 – denial of exemption to unit No.3 by relying on the circular No.939/29/2010-CX dated 22.12.2010 on the ground that unit No.III is just an addition to the existing Unit and it cannot be considered as an independent unit - Term ‘factory’ and ‘industrial unit’ – HELD - appellant has started their production in different units in the same factory - all the units are independent as they are having their own factory building, and the plant and machinery, employees, bank accounts, etc. separately - the factory and unit are two different connotations and a factory can have three different industrial units. The Revenue has relied on the CBEC circular No.939/29/2010-CX dated 20.10.2010 - Admittedly, the appellant has started their production before the cut-off date, therefore the said circular has no relevance - the appellant has started three different units on the same plot of land and having separate plant and machinery, separate, inputs, manpower, finances and are manufacturing different products, therefore, all the three units cannot be considered as one unit. In fact in the factory, there are three different units - the Unit No.III is separate from Unit No. I is entitled for exemption under Notification No.50/03-CE - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-80-ORI  | High Court VAT

Orissa Sales Tax Act – limitation period for suo motu revision - interpretation of Section 23(4)(a) of OST Act r/w Rule 80 of the OST Rules - whether under Rule 80 of the Rules, revisional proceedings are to be concluded from the date of passing of the final orders passed within a period of three years sought to be revised or the proceedings if initiated within three years can be concluded beyond the period of three years – HELD – the Rule 80 can be read in the manner that the Commissioner may on his own motion at any time within three years from the date of passing of any order by the Sales Tax Office, he may after ... [Read more]

Orissa Sales Tax Act – limitation period for suo motu revision - interpretation of Section 23(4)(a) of OST Act r/w Rule 80 of the OST Rules - whether under Rule 80 of the Rules, revisional proceedings are to be concluded from the date of passing of the final orders passed within a period of three years sought to be revised or the proceedings if initiated within three years can be concluded beyond the period of three years – HELD – the Rule 80 can be read in the manner that the Commissioner may on his own motion at any time within three years from the date of passing of any order by the Sales Tax Office, he may after giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiry as he deems necessary revise any such order - Any interpretation contrary to the above would mean that even though initiation of proceedings for revision may be done within three years, final order can be passed after years of such initiation which would keep the matter hanging for years together, which cannot be the intention of the Act - The purpose of Rule 80 is to give finality to the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Asst. Commissioner within a specified period - On reading of the Rule 80 in a joint manner would make it clear that for revising an order within a period of three years after providing opportunity to the assessee and calling for the records, the revision order itself has to be passed within a period of three years – the impugned order is set aside and writ petition stands allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-81-KAR  | High Court VAT

Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 – Rule 12(5) - Branch Transfer - assessee filed consolidated ‘F’ Form for the entire year - Assessing Authority rejected the single ‘F’ Form filed for the entire year by mandating the separate ‘F’ Forms for each calendar month - demand on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the prescribed Form ‘F’ declarations to prove that the transaction in question were branch transfers – HELD – the Department itself failed to issue blank ‘F’ Form declarations, allowing the petitioner in turn to furnish the same on monthly basis, as required und... [Read more]

Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 – Rule 12(5) - Branch Transfer - assessee filed consolidated ‘F’ Form for the entire year - Assessing Authority rejected the single ‘F’ Form filed for the entire year by mandating the separate ‘F’ Forms for each calendar month - demand on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the prescribed Form ‘F’ declarations to prove that the transaction in question were branch transfers – HELD – the Department itself failed to issue blank ‘F’ Form declarations, allowing the petitioner in turn to furnish the same on monthly basis, as required under Rule 12(5) of CST Rules. The consolidated ‘F’ Form for the entire year has been rejected on the ground that separate ‘F’ Forms were not filed within the period of limitation – Department has not produced any specific Rule prescribed for limitation for the said purpose and therefore, the separate ‘F’ Forms furnished by the petitioner-assessee could not have been rejected on the ground of being filed belatedly - the demand raised against the petitioner for the alleged failure of production of separate ‘F’ Forms, even though the factum of branch transfer is not disputed by the Department cannot be sustained - The Writ Petition is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-128-CESTAT-CHE-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - The appellants obtained fly ash for use in the manufacture of Asbestos products – demand on the ground that appellants had not used 25% of fly ash in finished products and thus was not eligible for benefit of Notification No.6/2002 – HELD - The allegation is that the appellant intentionally resorted to accounting of excess fly ash receipts in their registers with a motive to inflate the percentage of fly ash used in the final products to be 25% or above in order to avail exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002. The case of the department is mainly based on the variation in the figures of... [Read more]

Central Excise - The appellants obtained fly ash for use in the manufacture of Asbestos products – demand on the ground that appellants had not used 25% of fly ash in finished products and thus was not eligible for benefit of Notification No.6/2002 – HELD - The allegation is that the appellant intentionally resorted to accounting of excess fly ash receipts in their registers with a motive to inflate the percentage of fly ash used in the final products to be 25% or above in order to avail exemption under Notification No.6/2002-CE dt. 1.3.2002. The case of the department is mainly based on the variation in the figures of fly ash allotted / lifted for appellant as shown in the records of MTPS whereby the quantity shown to have allotted to appellant as per records of MTPS is much lower than that shown to have received in the records of appellant - On perusal of the documents produced and after hearing the submissions, we are of the opinion that the appellant has to be given a further chance of contesting the case with the support of documents. They have consistently pleaded that they have received supply of fly ash not only from MTPS but also from various other sources - The adjudicating authority is directed to consider the documents furnished by appellants in deciding the matter - the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed by way of remand [Read less]

2018-VIL-125-CESTAT-ALH-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Business auxiliary service - Appellant incurred advertisement and sale promotion expenditure in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh - Service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism on the basis balance sheet figures – situation of revenue neutrality - HELD – the basis of demand is balance sheet figures obtained by the department from the balance sheets of the appellant - No effort has been made to find out how much amount appellant have paid towards Service Tax and under which head. Moreover, no credence has been given to the CA certificate produced by the appellant - merely on the figures shown in the balance sh... [Read more]

Service Tax - Business auxiliary service - Appellant incurred advertisement and sale promotion expenditure in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh - Service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism on the basis balance sheet figures – situation of revenue neutrality - HELD – the basis of demand is balance sheet figures obtained by the department from the balance sheets of the appellant - No effort has been made to find out how much amount appellant have paid towards Service Tax and under which head. Moreover, no credence has been given to the CA certificate produced by the appellant - merely on the figures shown in the balance sheet without assigning actual amount demand is not sustainable - service tax has been demanded from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism being service recipient. If appellant is required to pay the said service tax same is admissible as cenvat credit – matter remand back to the adjudicating authority for fair adjudication after considering all the records placed by the appellant and to give finding in detail on each aspects - The adjudicating authority shall consider the issue appellant being service recipient and paying Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit, in that circumstances whether it is a situation of revenue neutrality or not – assessee appeal allowed by remand [Read less]

2018-VIL-123-CESTAT-ALH-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise – eligibility of Cenvat Credit on goods procured for use in Testing Lab, which used to provide product testing & certification service and concept manufacturing services – credit sought to be denied on the ground that the classification of the items in question do not figure under any of the headings figuring in the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004 - input and Capital goods – HELD – the appellant has taken Cenvat credit as capital goods on the goods in question. Although they do not qualify as capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004, but in alternate it is the claim of the... [Read more]

Central Excise – eligibility of Cenvat Credit on goods procured for use in Testing Lab, which used to provide product testing & certification service and concept manufacturing services – credit sought to be denied on the ground that the classification of the items in question do not figure under any of the headings figuring in the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004 - input and Capital goods – HELD – the appellant has taken Cenvat credit as capital goods on the goods in question. Although they do not qualify as capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004, but in alternate it is the claim of the appellant that these goods be treated as inputs in terms of rule 2(k)(ii) of CCR, 2004 – Admittedly the goods in question has been used for providing the output service by the appellant - The question raised in the impugned order is that the appellant has not shown these goods as inputs or they have added value of said goods in the value of taxable service. The terminology of rule 2(k)(ii) is very clear and that does not bar or give qualification on adding value of said goods in the taxable service. Therefore said reasoning of the ld.Commissioner is not convincing – the other reasoning in the impugned order is that the said goods have not been consumed while providing output service. We find that the language of the statute is very clear. All inputs used for providing output service. We fail to understand from where the term consumed has been brought by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order - appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat Credit on the goods in question and same may be treated as input for providing output service - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-122-CESTAT-CHE-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

Customs - The appellants exported ductile iron spun pipes – levy of export duty in terms of Notification No. 66/2008-Cus. dated 10.5.2008 - appellant opposed the export duty levy on the ground that item exported is cast iron tubes whereas what is taxable is tubes and pipes of iron or steel – HELD - The thrust of the argument by the appellant is the description in the notification for export duty will more appropriately be covered under Import Tariff Heading 7304 and since their product is covered under 7303 as cast iron pipes, they are not liable to export duty. We are not in agreement with the said proposal - The noti... [Read more]

Customs - The appellants exported ductile iron spun pipes – levy of export duty in terms of Notification No. 66/2008-Cus. dated 10.5.2008 - appellant opposed the export duty levy on the ground that item exported is cast iron tubes whereas what is taxable is tubes and pipes of iron or steel – HELD - The thrust of the argument by the appellant is the description in the notification for export duty will more appropriately be covered under Import Tariff Heading 7304 and since their product is covered under 7303 as cast iron pipes, they are not liable to export duty. We are not in agreement with the said proposal - The notification for export duty only mentions tubes and pipes, of iron or steel. While Import Tariff Heading 7304 clearly mentions “iron (other than cast iron)” in the notification, no such exclusion has been made for iron. In other words, when the export duty notification mentions tubes and pies of iron or steel, those of such tubes and pipes made up of iron or steel shall be liable to export duty. No exclusion or restriction is placed on such duty entry. This much could be inferred from the clarification issued on 3.6.2008 by the Board. A plain reading of the Notification and the description of the export goods will indicate that the appellant is liable to export duty in terms of the said Notification - The appeal is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-83-DEL-ST  | High Court SERVICE TAX

Service Tax - Writ petition seeking quashing of Notification No. 22/2015-CE(NT) dated 29th October, 2015 and to allow utilisation of credit accumulated on account of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess for payment of service tax – respondent contends that credit of EC and SHE towards payment of excise duty or service tax is not a vested right and cross-utilization of EC and SHE credit was never permitted – HELD – credit of EC and SHE could be only allowed against EC and SHE and could not be cross-utilized against the excise duty or service tax. In fact, what the petitioners seek is an amendment of ... [Read more]

Service Tax - Writ petition seeking quashing of Notification No. 22/2015-CE(NT) dated 29th October, 2015 and to allow utilisation of credit accumulated on account of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess for payment of service tax – respondent contends that credit of EC and SHE towards payment of excise duty or service tax is not a vested right and cross-utilization of EC and SHE credit was never permitted – HELD – credit of EC and SHE could be only allowed against EC and SHE and could not be cross-utilized against the excise duty or service tax. In fact, what the petitioners seek is an amendment of the scheme to allow them to take cross utilization of the unutilized EC and SHE upon the two cesses being withdrawn against excise duty and service tax, though this was not the position even earlier. Both EC and SHE were withdrawn and abolished. They ceased to be payable. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that a vested right or claim existed - The provisos added to Rule 3, sub-rule (7) in clause (b) of CCR, 2004 are really in the nature of concessions confined to a limited and narrow set of cases and are not of general application - they expand the scope and give benefit of utilization of accumulated EC and SHE against payment of excise duty and service tax, which was not the position prior to 1st March, 2015 and 1st June, 2015, respectively. It is also easily apparent as to why the said benefit or concession was granted. These cases certainly fall in a distinct and separate class. The said classification would not fall foul of vice of discrimination. Article 14 is not offended. In fact the petitioners do not challenge and question the provisos, albeit seek additional benefit and concession beyond those granted, even though they were never available earlier - Use of the word "subsumed" in the context of the present case does not help and assist the petitioners in the manner asserted. No promise and statement that cross utilization of EC and SHE would be permitted was made – no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed [Read less]

2018-VIL-81-ALH  | High Court SGST

GST - Transactional Credit - Petition seeking extension of time period for filing of GST TRAN-1 as the petitioner’s application was not entertained on the last date i.e. 27.12.2017 – HELD – The respondents have instructions to state that some new committee is likely to be formed, which will take care of the individual cases probably within next two weeks but are unable to give any exact date - In view of this, the respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from today. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the application of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due veri... [Read more]

GST - Transactional Credit - Petition seeking extension of time period for filing of GST TRAN-1 as the petitioner’s application was not entertained on the last date i.e. 27.12.2017 – HELD – The respondents have instructions to state that some new committee is likely to be formed, which will take care of the individual cases probably within next two weeks but are unable to give any exact date - In view of this, the respondents are directed to reopen the portal within two weeks from today. In the event they do not do so, they will entertain the application of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the credits as claimed by the petitioner. They will also ensure that the petitioner is allowed to pay its taxes on the regular electronic system also which is being maintained for use of the credit likely to be considered for the petitioner - the writ petition shall stand disposed of finally [Read less]

2018-VIL-82-KAR  | High Court VAT

Karnataka VAT Act 2003 – Section 39(1) – Input Tax Credit - validity of disallowance of input tax credit at the hands of purchasing dealer wherein the selling dealer has failed to file the tax returns and discharge its tax liability - denial of Input Tax Credit on the ground that no VAT-100 returns were filed by the selling dealers for the relevant period – HELD - it is not in doubt that unless the purchasing dealer establishes the genuineness of the invoices issued by the selling dealer, no input tax credit can be allowed; but that is not the case in the present set of facts. The Assessing Officer while passing reas... [Read more]

Karnataka VAT Act 2003 – Section 39(1) – Input Tax Credit - validity of disallowance of input tax credit at the hands of purchasing dealer wherein the selling dealer has failed to file the tax returns and discharge its tax liability - denial of Input Tax Credit on the ground that no VAT-100 returns were filed by the selling dealers for the relevant period – HELD - it is not in doubt that unless the purchasing dealer establishes the genuineness of the invoices issued by the selling dealer, no input tax credit can be allowed; but that is not the case in the present set of facts. The Assessing Officer while passing reassessment order has categorically observed that the invoices are genuine – further, no input tax credit can be disallowed on the premise that the selling dealer is de-registered subsequent to the relevant tax periods - The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh - the order impugned is set aside and revision petition is allowed by remand [Read less]

2018-VIL-124-CESTAT-CHE-ST  | CESTAT SERVICE TAX

Service Tax – The assessee, while discharging service tax liability under heading Survey and Exploration of Mineral, Oil or Gas service, failed to include freight charges and equipment rental charges etc., in their total taxable value – The department argues that as per Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006, any expenditure incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services has to be included in the value of taxable services for levy of service tax – HELD - the appellants has taken a contention that the equipment rental charges if at all would come only under the “Su... [Read more]

Service Tax – The assessee, while discharging service tax liability under heading Survey and Exploration of Mineral, Oil or Gas service, failed to include freight charges and equipment rental charges etc., in their total taxable value – The department argues that as per Rule 5(1) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006, any expenditure incurred by the service provider in the course of providing taxable services has to be included in the value of taxable services for levy of service tax – HELD - the appellants has taken a contention that the equipment rental charges if at all would come only under the “Supply of Tangible Goods service” and that such services were not taxable during the relevant period - such arguments are not material for consideration in this appeal, for the reason that the SCN as well as the OIO basis the allegation only under sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006 - The applicability of Rule 5 (1) was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd wherein it was held that the inclusion of costs and expenditures in the gross taxable value by making provision in the Rules is repugnant to Section 66 and 77 of the Finance Act and to that extent is ultra vires - Following the ratio laid in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd, the demand cannot sustain - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed [Read less]

2018-VIL-121-CESTAT-AHM-CE  | CESTAT CENTRAL EXCISE

Central Excise - appellant availed the entire credit on capital goods in the same financial year - Department view assessee are eligible to avail credit of duty paid on capital goods only to the extent of 50% in duty paid financial year and the balance 50% of the credit in subsequent financial year - Demand of interest on excess credit availed - Rule 4(2)(a) of CCR, 2004 – HELD - the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order though upheld the admissibility of credit but failed to make any observation that this credit should have been spread over in two financial years and accordingly, the appellant since availed the total c... [Read more]

Central Excise - appellant availed the entire credit on capital goods in the same financial year - Department view assessee are eligible to avail credit of duty paid on capital goods only to the extent of 50% in duty paid financial year and the balance 50% of the credit in subsequent financial year - Demand of interest on excess credit availed - Rule 4(2)(a) of CCR, 2004 – HELD - the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order though upheld the admissibility of credit but failed to make any observation that this credit should have been spread over in two financial years and accordingly, the appellant since availed the total credit in the first financial year itself the total credit, liable to pay the interest on the 50% of the credit availed in advance, which ought to have taken in next financial year - the demand notice was issued considering the credit availed on capital goods, therefore, the ground taken by the Revenue is not beyond the purview of show-cause notice - the assessee-respondents are liable to pay interest for taking the credit of 50% of credit in advance on the capital goods - However, no penalty is imposable under Rule 15(1) of the CCR, 2004 – answered in favour of revenue [Read less]

2018-VIL-120-CESTAT-AHM-CU  | CESTAT Case CUSTOMS

M/s INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED Vs C.C., KANDLA: 09.02.2018 - Customs - whether the appellant are required to discharge duty on the invoice quantity of bulk liquid cargo imported as reflected in the Bills of entry or on the quantity shown in the out turn report as determined – HELD - the bill of lading quantity alone is to be looked at for the purpose of determining the value of goods imported - the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd Vs CCE Mangalore - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page