Indirect Tax Decisions [1-5 Jan 2024] - Part 1
Shyam Coach Engineers v CCE [2024] GCtR 163 (CESTAT) - Refund of duty either under Central Excise Act, Customs Act, in a Civil Suit or in a Writ Petition can be granted only when it is established that burden of duty has not been passed on to the others. It has been held that the person ultimately bearing the burden of duty can only legitimate its refund.
Commissioner of customs v Suresh Bhonsle [2024] GCtR 164 (CESTAT) - Once it is found that the gold recovered was not under valid documents, the same would be treated as prohibited goods liable to confiscation and consequently, penalty is inbuilt and is leviable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Dinesh Irrigation Pvt Ltd v CCGST [2024] GCtR 31 (CESTAT) - Once the disputed CENVAT credit on the insurance service which was used both for dutiable and exempted goods has been reversed, nothing survives in the demand because the case of the Revenue was that the person had taken CENVAT credit on common input services and had not maintained separate accounts and this credit has already been reversed.
Principal Commissioner of Customs v M/s. Go IP Global Services Pvt. Ltd [2024] GCtR 32 (CESTAT) - 'And’ used between Multiple Input/Multiple Output (MIMO); Long Term Evolution (LTE) is a conjunctive joining of both the said terms (MIMO/LTE).
Chopra Constructions v Commissioner (Appeals) [2024] GCtR 165 (CESAT) - Show cause notice issued after the period held to be time barred.
Raajhans Spices Pvt Ltd v Commissioner of Customs [2024] GCtR 166 (CESTAT) - Exporter had challenged action of Department. Market survey was done by Department and goods were directed to be confiscated. Market survey was done in the absence of the representative of the exporter, it is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. Action of Department set aside.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.