So far the demand for sale of domain name is concerned, the issue stands decided in favour of the appellant in the case of Tata Sons Limited (supra) wherein it has been held that transaction in domain name is a transaction in property in the goods and amounts to transaction of sale of goods. Domain name are akin to trade mark, making them the property of the person who owns it.
M/s. O.M.S. Sivajothi Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an option in lieu of confiscation and hence, both (confiscation and redemption fine) cannot run simultaneously. It observed that when the order on confiscation remained unchallenged, and when even […]
M/S. Lucas TVS Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Observing that as per definition of ‘input services’ the restriction to avail credit up to the place of removal was applicable only for outward transportation of goods, CESTAT Chennai has allowed Cenvat credit of tax paid on renting of crates used in […]
Appellants are not liable to penalty on wrong availment of GTA services up to the customer’s premises because it was an interpretation issue and was settled by the Apex Court in the year 2018in the case of Ultratech and therefore no intention to evade service tax can be imputed on the appellant.
Mumbai Bench of CESTAT has held that there is no estoppel in raising classification dispute in subsequent import of a product and that in the absence of appropriate classification there was nothing binding to treat previous classification as the sole option.
Jaiswal Import Cargo Services Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT New Delhi has observed that assorted birthday candles with Chlorate, Potassium, Aluminium, etc., (material for fireworks) only in material contents of the central wig, are not classifiable as fireworks. The Tribunal for this purpose, relied upon Rule 3(a) of Interpretative Rules and the […]
Delhi High Court has held that statement of directors of company who were co-noticees cannot be in every case need to be cross examined under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 138 of Customs Act, 1962. It was held that statement of directors cannot be called as statement simplicitor but a statement as that of the company.
CESTAT Chennai has held that the difference in the declared value and the value in the NIDB database does not constitute in itself a ‘reasonable doubt’ needed to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), 2007. It was held that simply because the value declared by the appellant is lower than the value found in the NIDB database, the value cannot be revised by the department.
Lulu International Convention Centre Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs Cochincus (CESTAT Bangalore) Appellant has discharged the export obligation and has also obtained redemption certificate from DGFT. Further I find that as per the EPCG Scheme, there is a provision that extension in export obligation period beyond two years period may be considered for a […]
Mikuni India Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and (CESTAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that the issue involved in this appeal is similar to the issues involved in the appeal that came up for decision before the Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/s India Yamaha Motor Private Limited. The Division Bench […]
