CESTAT Hyderabad held that value of freight charged for delivering goods to buyers premises is not includible in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the value of free supplies cannot be included in the gross amount charged for the purpose of levy of service tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that Revenue cannot take a different stand when the Revenue has accepted the principles laid down in a previous case. Accordingly, demand cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi held that additional incentive received by the dealer for meeting certain targets is in the form of trade discount and is not a payment for any service. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Chennai held that Custom House Agent (CHA) cannot be expected to examine and ensure the nature of the goods in the consignment. Accordingly, penalty u-s 114 of the Customs Act cannot be levied on CHA alleging that they didn’t ensure correct classification of the goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations.
Tribunal has taken view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of value of imported goods, would be appropriate in case of imports violating Exim Policy Provisions.
Once duty is paid on finished goods even though said finished goods attract nil rate of duty or exempted under any notification, cenvat credit on input cannot be denied
Jansons Textile Processors Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Salem (CESTAT Chennai) The facts of the matter are that appellants are manufacturers of cotton textile fabrics and made ups. They were clearing some of the final products on payment of duty as per Notification No.29/2004-CE and claimed exemption under notification No.30/2004-CE on other products. […]
Bombardier Transportation India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T Vadodara II (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that there is no dispute that the appellant had initially filed the refund application on 13.06.2011. It is this refund claim which was rejected by the sanctioning authority and the matter had travelled up to this Tribunal. This tribunal vide […]
