CESTAT Delhi held that goods are liable for confiscation u/s. 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 since goods are mis-declared with intention to evade imposition of anti-dumping duty under notification no. 51/2012-CUS(ADD) dated 03.12.2012. Further, penalty also imposed u/s. 114(A) of the Customs Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that under Customs Act interest on sanctioned refund is admissible after three months from the date of application and not from date of Commissioner (A) order.
Book entry/manner of book keeping cannot lead to demand of service tax; (ii) recoupment/booking of costs between two divisions of the same company cannot amount to provision of service as there is no service provider and no service receiver;
CESTAT Mumbai dismisses the Department’s appeal, allowing Oerlikon to claim CENVAT credit at Pune. The ruling emphasizes revenue neutrality and pre-2016 Rule 7 provisions.
Enbee Education Centre Private Limited Vs Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The services provided amount to “export of service” under Rule 2 read with Rule 3(2) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules We share the recent order passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT Ahmedabad. The appellant is providing services to foreign universities. […]
CESTAT Mumbai rules extended limitation cannot apply for service tax demand on sub-contractors due to conflicting decisions, emphasizing procedural norms.
CIT (Appeals) held that assessee qualified as an ‘intermediary,’ making the services rendered ineligible for classification as ‘Export of Services’ under the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
CESTAT Bangalore held that no time limit has been prescribed under the statutory provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act hence circular no. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 cannot prescribe particular time period which is not provide u/s. 149.
CESTAT Bangalore held that the quantity of crude oil actually received into a shore tank in a port in India should be the basis for payment of customs duty. Thus, customs duty needs to be calculated based on crude oil received in shore tank.
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. faced a service tax demand for short payments, penalties, and CENVAT credit issues during the period 2003–2007. CESTAT ruling clarified the matter.
