Held that the goods have been confiscated and no redemption was allowed, the duty liability cannot pass on to anyone but to the Government of India in whom the property vests.
Held that since Cess on Paper is not a duty of excise the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply
Held that duty exemption benefit under notification no. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 cannot be denied because of a diversification of production capacity by adding new machines.
Held that Melamina is a Syantan and accordingly benefit of duty free import under DFIA licence under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 available
ITAT Chandigarh held that the aggregator/ intermediary (OLA) acts merely as an intermediary and hence not liable to deduct TDS u/s 194C on payments made to drivers.
Held that while the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, the transporter has right to seek the release of conveyance alone.
Held that the proper officer cannot transform the detention proceedings into a confiscatory proceeding. Further, power of confiscation can be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.
Held that the credit which is admissible as input tax credit under the CGST Act can be availed as input tax credit. The quantum of credit which relates to the items which continued to be covered under the Central Excise Act would not be admissible as input tax credit under CGST Act.
Held that the undertaking to use the aircraft for non-scheduled (passenger) service can be said to have been violated only when the DGCA finds that the use of the aircraft is not in accordance with the permit granted and only in that event the Customs authority can demand duty in terms of undertaking
Held that in case of Trademark License Agreement an exclusive license to use the trademark is granted and hence the same is covered within the phrase transfer of right to use the goods and hence not leviable to service tax.
