There is no contract of commission agent service with any of the commission agent, there is no person to whom payment of commission was made therefore, it is clear that no service provider i.e. foreign commission agent exists in the present case.
The issue under consideration is whether the Calcite Sand (Calcite Powder) is classifiable under CT 2503 9030 as mineral product or required to be classified under CTH 2836 5000 as a chemical?
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Artex Textile Private Limited (CESTAT Delhi) we find that assessing officer have been making enhancement in a routine manner and the respondent who are regular importers are left with no choice but to sign on the dotted line for taking delivery of their goods to carry on their business, and also […]
Lancor Holdings Limited Vs The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute as to the eligibility or otherwise for refund except the claim being rejected as barred by limitation. There is also no dispute that both the service provider and the service recipient having merged into a single entity, there […]
The issue under consideration is whether denial of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant for construction/setting up of landfill is justified in law?
Classic Marble Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) In this case The learned adjudicating authority has rejected the declared value in respect of the subject Bills of Entry under Section 14(1) ibid read with Rule 12 ibid and re-determined the assessable value under Section 14(1) ibid read with Rule 3(1) ibid, holding that sufficient […]
The issue under consideration is regarding rejection of refund claimed by the appellant being service tax paid for the services received in the SEZ.
Metlife India Insurance Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore) CESTAT Bengaluru has held that Cenvat credit of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism for availing services of insurance agents was available in a case when a portion of the premium amount (consideration towards output service), in case of ULIP policies, was […]
Shiroki Auto Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT Ahmedabad has held that the child parts imported by the appellant are classifiable under Tariff Item 9401 90 00 as parts of vehicle seats as declared by the importer-assessee and not under Tariff Item 8708 99 00 as parts […]
The issue under consideration is regarding rejection of claim for refund of the service tax under Section 11B.
