CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as excise duty is levied on the entire value of supply of machinery. Hence, service tax cannot be demanded separately on activity of erection, commissioning and installation of the said machinery.
Madras High Court held that the application for provisional release of goods under section 110-A of the Customs Act should be considered even during pendency of any proceedings initiated by the department.
ITAT Chennai held that in case of wastage charges there is no payment and once there is no payment there is no question of deduction of TDS under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of struck off company is not void as per section 250 of Companies Act of 2013 even where a Company is dissolved in consequence to it being struck off under Section 248, it shall be deemed to continue to be in existence for the purpose of discharging its liabilities.
Allahabad High Court held that costume used in the water park would neither fall within the definition of words ‘instrument’ or ‘contrivance’ hence renting on ‘costumes’ cannot be included in the term ‘payment for admission’ as defined under Section 2(l)(iii) of The Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 and not subject to entertainment tax.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the writ petition held that the petitioner is having a remedy to challenge the order/notice by way of filing an appeal and the ground raised by him with respect to jurisdiction of the authorities can always be considered by the authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund on inputs in respect of Club or Association Services, Services by Air-conditioned Restaurants, Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services, Mandap Keeper Services, Convention Services, Cable Operator Services and for Sponsorship Services as well as Event Management Services were already allowed to the appellant in earlier period. Hence the same is allowed here as well.
CESTAT Delhi held that as evidenced, appellants believed Sh. Rajan Arora in good faith and were also not aware about the mis-declaration/ under-valuation of the goods imported. Hence, penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act reduced from INR 12 Lakhs to INR 50,000.
Supreme Court held that when the High Court deals with judgments of this Court, which are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it is expected that the judgments have to be dealt with due respect.
Bombay High Court has held that notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated October 13, 2017 (amending notification no. 16/2015-Customs) granting exemption from the IGST to the capital goods imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme is clarifying and curative in nature.
