Held that allegation of clandestine removal only on the basis of incriminating statements, which were retracted, in absence of corroborative evidence is unsustainable.
Neha Agrawal Carboline India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Facts: i. The appellant had exported ‘Paint for fire proofing THERMO Lag 3000 SP’ vide 2 shipping bills dated 18.04.2018 and 02.05.2018. ii. Two Advance authorisations (AA) dated 09.04.2018 & 02.05.2018 were obtained for duty free import of raw materials with an export […]
Chandigarh CESTAT held that if the department intends to classify the goods under a particular heading different from that claimed by the assessee, the department has to adduce proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof.
Held that if proceedings do not culminate within a reasonable period of time then they stand vitiated. The delay of over a decade truly violates the Appellant’s right to natural justice and vitiates the entire proceeding.
Held that incorrect earlier decision by a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction cannot be rendered per incuriam. Earlier decision has binding effect on a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Held that work of mediator/ arbitrator in resolving the dispute between the parties is not management consultancy service. Accordingly, not liable to service tax under management consultancy service u/s 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994
Held that no iota of evidence was submitted by Revenue regarding under valuation of goods and hence benefit given to the appellant.
CESTAT Held that services relating to modernization, renovation or repairs of factory is input service, accordingly cenvat credit available.
No service tax on composite works contract services of supply of goods/deemed supply of goods & services under any head before 1.6.2007
PLA deposits are deposits for utilisation in future & same is not duty to attract limitation provision of section 11B of Central Excise Act
