CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 not imposable in absence of any duty demand. Penalty u/s 114A is invariably linked to the quantum of duty evaded.
Commissioner Central Excise & Central GST Vs Navdeep Traders (CESTAT Delhi) Issue- whether the activity of the respondent is a works contract service and thus the value of the blasting material/explosives is to be excluded from the amount received by the assessee for blasting at customers site for excavation of sand stone. The respondent – […]
Messrs Mahasagar Travels Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that both the appellants are engaged in the inter-state and intra-state transportation of passengers and registered as Tour Operators and paying service tax in normal course of their business. However, Notification No. 20/2009-ST dated […]
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of transaction value and determining the value based on the contemporaneous value available in National Import Database (NIDB) correct as quantity of goods is much larger than what was declared; buyer and seller are related parties and grade of guar gum is mis-declared.
IOCL was not entitled for the conversion of DEEC shipping bills to drawback shipping bills since it was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the competent authority and for the reason for non-filing of the requisite documents in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act as well as the Circular.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the term ‘permanently’ in 4th Proviso to rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules is clearly related to a particular month and not forever.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurant in relation to letting out of halls or rooms for organizing any official, social or business function under ‘mandap keeper’ service.
CESTAT Chennai held that any other amount, other than gross amount charged for providing taxable service, which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’.
Fact of suppression, etc., has not been established by the Revenue to justify invoking the extended period of limitation
