CESTAT Chennai held that tubular tower being parts of wind operated electricity generator is eligible for exemption under notification no. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that issue of leviability of tax on liquidated damages is to be decided as per clarification provided by CBIC vide circular no. 178/10/2022-GST. The circular mainly clarifies that liquidated damages are mere flow of money from party who causes a breach of contract to party who suffers loss due to such breach, then such payments do not constitute consideration for supply and are not taxable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that placing reliance on the statements unjustified as no opportunity to cross-examine is granted and even the test of Section 9D of Central Excise Act is not passed.
Harbhan Singh Sandhu Vs CC (CESTAT Chandigarh) In view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham vs. CCE-2015 (322) ELT 372 (SC), wherein it has been held that no proceeding can be initiated against dead person as it amounts to violation of natural justice inasmuch as dead person, who […]
It is seen that Discharge Certificate in Form No. SVLDRS-4 under SVLDR Scheme 2019 has been issued to assessee. Appeal is dismissed as deemed to be withdrawn.
Rishad Shipping And Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Export) (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT find that in para 29 of the Order-in-Original, the original authority has held that the appellant were liable for penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subsequently ordered imposition of penalty of 2.0 lakhs under Section 114(i) […]
CESTAT Hyderabad held that as per Rule 3 of General Rules of Interpretation specific description is to be preferred over a general description. Accordingly, CTH 9027 is more specific for instrument – I Stat System along with cartridges, etc. than CTH 9018.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demand of duty on freight by including the same in assessable value not sustainable as factory gate is the place of removal.
CESTAT Chennai held that in agreements where one party is non-resident, it is responsibility of other Indian resident party to meet TDS obligation arising on account of the respective agreement.
There was a bona fide litigation going on as regards the nature of activity carried. As to whether activity carried amount to production so as to be covered under Business Auxiliary Services was a debatable issue
