CESTAT Delhi held that assisting the registration of the vehicles with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) tax cannot be considered a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand of the service tax set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-valuation of goods without first rejecting the transaction value of the goods is not in accordance with law. Show cause notice without proposal of rejection of transaction value or demanding differential duty is both speculative and presumptive.
Vrl Logistics Ltd Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad) No post import condition in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. – CESTAT quashes Tax & Penalty demand, confiscation of aircrafts not sustainable We find that the issue in the present matters relates to the grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3- 2002 as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus. […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs Dimension Data India Limited (CESTAT Chennai) It is brought out that an amount of Rs.7,23,072/- was rejected by the original authority on the ground that Bill of Entry in regard to RSP based assessed goods has to be reassessed and refund claim has to be filed for the CVD paid by […]
CPC (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, were heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. Brief facts are that the appellants hold Central Excise registration as well as Service Tax registration. During the scrutiny of CENVAT documents, it […]
Acme Ceramics Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that reversal of credit and payment of interest thereon, can be adjusted from the payment of Rs. 2 lacs already made by the appellant. We find that the Tribunal/Court in the judgments cited by the appellant held that even if the assessee agreeing to reverse […]
CESTAT Delhi held that profit on ocean freight charges cannot be termed as consideration for service and hence service tax is not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that department cannot self assign to itself the duty of declaring bad in law the certificate issued to the importer by Ministry of Renewable Energy or decide title of the goods, even when no one is disputing ownership.
CESTAT Delhi held that authority is not permitted to retain the excess amount paid by the appellant because of an error in EDI system. Authority is duty bound to refund such amount.
