CESTAT Kolkata held that demanding duty on the short payment, ignoring the excess payment is bad in law. Accordingly, demand of differential duty unsustainable as the entire exercise is revenue neutral.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of service receiver and service provider relationship, there is no service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) for payment of service tax, vide notification 30/2012 ST (Sr. No. 9 of the table) dated 20.06. 2012 as amended.
CESTAT held that amount collected by selling study material is not a taxable service, hence, no service tax leviable on sale of coaching material.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that allegation of violation of regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 (CBLR) proved against the appellant. Accordingly, customs broker license duly revocable.
CESTAT held that, there should be mens rea to evade payment of service tax for demand of service tax and penalty beyond period of limitation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of excise duty in terms of rule 8 of the Valuation Rules not sustainable as correct higher duty already paid in terms of rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of declared value in terms of rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 solely on the basis of various letters of different authorities without examining contemporaneous NIDB data is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict on customs valuation rules regarding Kumar Impex’s appeal against reassessment of imported goods’ value under Rule 12.
CESTAT Mumbai held that bagasse being an agricultural waste/ residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. Accordingly, bagasse is not result of any manufacturing process
CESTAT Delhi held that value of reimbursement of expenditure is not includible in the value of taxable service and accordingly, service tax is not payable on the same.
