Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing SS Hose Assembly, Flange & Fittings, also procured MS Round, TMT Bars, etc., performed work on them, and cleared them to buyers after availing CENVAT credit on inputs. The entire CENVAT credit was reversed upon clearance to buyers. The demand of Rs. 1,46,75,425/- towards CENVAT credit and u/s 11D indicates the credit was properly reversed. The goods' clearance falls u/r 3(5) of CCR, 2004 rather than finished goods clearance. The appellant provided documentary evidence of receiving goods, accounting in books, and banking channel payments. The CESTAT held that denying CENVAT credit was unjustified. Regarding time limitation, the show cause notice was issued belatedly in 2013 for transactions during 2008-10, which were part of ER-1 returns relied upon. No suppression was established, making the demand time-barred. The appeals were allowed on merits and time bar.
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing SS Hose Assembly, Flange & Fittings, also procured MS Round, TMT Bars, etc., performed work on them, and cleared them to buyers after availing CENVAT credit on inputs. The entire CENVAT credit was reversed upon clearance to buyers. The demand of Rs. 1,46,75,425/- towards CENVAT credit and u/s 11D indicates the credit was properly reversed. The goods' clearance falls u/r 3(5) of CCR, 2004 rather than finished goods clearance. The appellant provided documentary evidence of receiving goods, accounting in books, and banking channel payments. The CESTAT held that denying CENVAT credit was unjustified. Regarding time limitation, the show cause notice was issued belatedly in 2013 for transactions during 2008-10, which were part of ER-1 returns relied upon. No suppression was established, making the demand time-barred. The appeals were allowed on merits and time bar.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
