Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. It held that CENVAT credit on services (erection/commissioning/installation) received at the appellant's depot/brand shop falls within the statutory definition of input services up to the place of removal and therefore could not be denied. The Tribunal rejected reliance on inapposite authorities concerning GTA services. A recovery was sustained only to the extent already voluntarily reversed by the appellant for Feb 2013-Jan 2014 (with interest); demands for earlier periods were quashed for lack of facts justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation and, consequently, penalties were also rescinded. The appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. It held that CENVAT credit on services (erection/commissioning/installation) received at the appellant's depot/brand shop falls within the statutory definition of input services up to the place of removal and therefore could not be denied. The Tribunal rejected reliance on inapposite authorities concerning GTA services. A recovery was sustained only to the extent already voluntarily reversed by the appellant for Feb 2013-Jan 2014 (with interest); demands for earlier periods were quashed for lack of facts justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation and, consequently, penalties were also rescinded. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
