CESTAT Held that, installation of ‘thermal insulation’ is a covered under definition of Works Contract Service & therefore, Service Tax is not demandable.
CESTAT Delhi held that wrong classification of goods or claiming of ineligible exemption notification doesn’t amount to mis-declaration or mis-statement.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009-2015 allows import of Urea through STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. Hence, goods cannot be held liable to confiscation. Consequently, no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty without granting an opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant produced all the evidence and documents contending that mobile phones were purchased from open market in Delhi. However, customs department failed to satisfy the onus that the said mobile phones were smuggled in nature. Accordingly, goods released.
N R Agarwal Industries LTD Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Limited issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of Rent-a-Cab service. Both the lower authorities have denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the said service is excluded for allowing the Cenvat credit as per exclusion Clause […]
CESTAT held that interest is payable for default in depositing the tax by the due date voluntarily or after determination of the amount of duty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Hubergroup India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard, penalty imposed on Shri. Suresh Nair employee of the appellant’s Company. I find that the issue of correct calculation of Cenvat Credit on the invoice issued by the 100% EOU was always in dispute, therefore, mala fide cannot be attributed to the employee […]
CESTAT Delhi held that the appellant had done only test production and hence duty demand on the same is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT not find any error in imposition of composite penalty under Rule 173 Q read with Section 11 AC as in the instant case all the charges have been confirmed and the charges pertains to both the period prior to introduction of Section 11 AC and thereafter. Therefore, penalty under both the provision could have been rightly imposed.
