The provisions of the Customs Act and that of the HCCR do not absolve the custodian of the responsibilities as mentioned in these Regulations to be observed by the Custodians itself, the CESTAT do not find any infirmity with the order under challenge where simultaneously penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant as well.
Appointment of the custodian was mainly for the purpose of getting the customs formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for home consumption or for depositing in a warehouse was passed by the proper officer. Refund application was rightly rejected as neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act was available to assessee.
IBM India Private Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore-ltu (CESTAT Bangalore) Admittedly the appellants are providing the services to their foreign company situated outside India and their parent company does not have any commercial or industrial establishment or any office in India and the services by appellant are provided in relation to provision of service recipient […]
Sales marketing and support services provided to its group companies are export of service because the said services have been provided on principal to principal basis and there is no element of principal-agent relationship.
CESTAT applied the User Test to the facts in hand and held that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal provided relief to the Appellant by allowing the CENVAT credit on tower materials and prefabricated buildings or shelters by relying on the Judgment of Vodafone pronounced by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, which have relied on the Judgment of Solid and Correct Engineering Works which laid down the permanency test.
First issue is involved relates to the payment of service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of GTA services received by appellant. The appellant has paid the service tax as soon as it was pointed by the auditor and again in cash when it was pointed out that it has to be paid in cash. In these circumstances, CESTAT not find that there was any malafide on the part of the appellant. Therefore, benefit of section 80 should be extended for the appellant and penalty under section 76 and 78 are set aside. The appellant have already conceded that they are not contesting the payment of duty.
Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of suppression or collusion with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.
Maruti Suzuki is in appeal against the impugned order wherein cenvat credit on event management service has been denied on the ground that the same does not cover under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as input service.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
