CESTAT find that there is no deliberate non-compliance and further the situation is wholly revenue neutral. Thus, there is no incentive for the appellant to evade payment of service tax under the RCM. Accordingly, CESTAT allow this appeal and set aside the penalty under Section 78.
Appellant entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on input. Question whether input arisen out of a process of manufacture is irrelevant.
CESTAT held that there shall be consonance between allegation levelled by Revenue and the records presented against the taxpayer. Further held that the allegation cannot be justified in absence of any admission from the assessee against the alleged clandestine transaction. Moreover, third party records and statement by Director of the Company cannot be used against the assessee for non-joinder of the parties.
Regulation 13 of CBLR, 2013 lays down that change of constitution of a Customs Broker needs to be communicated within 60 days from the date of such change for grant of license under Regulation 7.
Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notices after passing of final order by Tribunal, with respect to subject matter of refund, was wholly against provisions of law
Whether wavering of pre-deposit on the grounds of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 existing prior to August 06, 2014 is feasible?
CESTAT set aside demand of service tax on refundable security deposit on the grounds that security deposit is refundable deposit and it cannot be included in the value of taxable service.
CESTAT Held that services of sales commission service don’t qualify as input service and accordingly Cenvat Credit on the same not available.
CESTAT held that rejection of refund claimed by exporter on flimsy grounds would defeat the purpose of rebate scheme and traps the exporters under unnecessary litigations.
Held that freight incurred from the place of removal to the buyer’s premises is not includible in the assessable value and accordingly excise is not payable on the same.
