Shiv Logistics vs Cgst & Central Excise Kutch Gandhidham on 23 July, 2025
2. Rishi Shipping Vs. CCE, Rajkot 2014 (33) 5.T.R. 595 (Tri. -Ahmd.)
CESTAT, Ahmedabad
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.48 seconds)Documents citing
M/S. Rishad Shipping & Clearing Agency ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 19 October, 2010
M/S. International Freight Systems Co. ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (G), Mumbai on 12 March, 2015
The judgement in the case of Somaiya Shipping (supra) held that there was no evidence of knowledge on the part of the Customs Broker because the mis-declaration of description and value of the goods was on basis of documents submitted by the importer. However, in the present case the employees of the Customs Broker had full knowledge of the fraud and admittedly they had connived in committing the fraud.
M/S. Garima Associates vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 15 June, 2015
I am of the view that the case of Rishi Shipping(supra) is related to the adjustment of excess amount in terms of Rule 6 (4A) where limit is only Rs. 1 lakh whereas in the present case appellant claimed that adjustment is in terms of Rule 6(1A) therefore the said judgment is not applicable. As per my above discussion, I am of the considered view that as per the facts, appellants case is covered by Rule 6(1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 according to which the adjustment of advance payment is permissible against service tax liability in the subsequent period without any limit of the amount, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
Computer Age Management Services ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 1 May, 2014
5. Ld. Authorized Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Tribunal in the case of Rishi Shipping Vs CCE Rajkot 2014 (33) STR 595 (Tri.-Ahd.) held that intimation to the jurisdictional Central Excise officer is mandatory. In the present case, the appellant had not intimated the adjustment to the jurisdictional officer. In this context, Ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench to relevant portion of the adjudication order.
1