CESTAT Delhi held that Revenue has not brought any evidence on record to allege that the goods found and seized in the premises of the appellant are smuggled goods. It is onus of the Revenue to give evidence for allegation that the goods are smuggled in nature.
It appeared that any service availed after clearance of finished goods beyond the place of removal is not an input service and therefore, the appellant are not eligible to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward GTA service.
Org Informatics Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Submission of appellant is that Such matter cannot be taken as evasion of service tax, the matter is revenue neutral as the Cenvat credit of service tax is always admissible and it is a fit case, for invocation of Section 80 of the […]
Sai Pooja Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT observed that the taxable services in relation to provisions of Outdoor Caterer is defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994 and attracting payment of service tax on the provisions of such services. However we find that there is Exemption vide […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the coverage and taxability of foreign agent service which are alleged to have been received outside India needs proper examination and hence directed for de novo adjudication
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as excise duty is levied on the entire value of supply of machinery. Hence, service tax cannot be demanded separately on activity of erection, commissioning and installation of the said machinery.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund on inputs in respect of Club or Association Services, Services by Air-conditioned Restaurants, Short Term Hotel Accommodation Services, Mandap Keeper Services, Convention Services, Cable Operator Services and for Sponsorship Services as well as Event Management Services were already allowed to the appellant in earlier period. Hence the same is allowed here as well.
CESTAT Delhi held that as evidenced, appellants believed Sh. Rajan Arora in good faith and were also not aware about the mis-declaration/ under-valuation of the goods imported. Hence, penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act reduced from INR 12 Lakhs to INR 50,000.
Desmet Reagent Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant urges that there is no disability provided under Rule 3 of CCR that Cenvat Credit shall not be available, if the duty is paid in the case of import through utilization of DEPB scrips. Rather Rule 9 of CCR specifically provides that one […]
Sai Charan Tours & Travels Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The only issue before us is the mandate to produce the certificate insisted upon as condition for provisional release from among the prescriptions in the licencing notes pertaining to imported vehicles. The Tribunal, in Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, […]
