Chimes Aviation Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Confiscation and customs duty recovery order against Chimes Aviation Private Limited for use of aircrafts for purposes other than training was quashed as the customs authorities should have proceeded to recover the duty on the basis of the undertaking only when the competent authority […]
The department had challenged the order passed by Tribunal, Mumbai wherein, the tribunal, inter alia, held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and the same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of the Central Excise Tariff.
CESTAT Held that, installation of ‘thermal insulation’ is a covered under definition of Works Contract Service & therefore, Service Tax is not demandable.
CESTAT Delhi held that wrong classification of goods or claiming of ineligible exemption notification doesn’t amount to mis-declaration or mis-statement.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009-2015 allows import of Urea through STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. Hence, goods cannot be held liable to confiscation. Consequently, no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty without granting an opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant produced all the evidence and documents contending that mobile phones were purchased from open market in Delhi. However, customs department failed to satisfy the onus that the said mobile phones were smuggled in nature. Accordingly, goods released.
N R Agarwal Industries LTD Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Rent-a-Cab service. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the said service is excluded for allowing the Cenvat credit as per exclusion Clause […]
CESTAT held that interest is payable for default in depositing the tax by the due date voluntarily or after determination of the amount of duty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard, penalty imposed on Shri. Suresh Nair employee of the appellant’s Company. I find that the issue of correct calculation of Cenvat Credit on the invoice issued by the 100% EOU was always in dispute, therefore, mala fide cannot be attributed to the employee […]
