CESTAT held that buying and selling of SIM cards and recharge coupons does not amount to providing business auxiliary service (BAS)
Suo motu credit of Cenvat reversed earlier involved only an account entry reversal and in the process, no outflow of funds from the assesse and accordingly, filing of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not required.
Service tax demand against famous cricketers and brothers, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan was not justified as they were not providing any service as an independent individual worker therefore, they were not liable to service tax under the Business Support Service for brand endorsement during IPL.
Chimes Aviation Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Confiscation and customs duty recovery order against Chimes Aviation Private Limited for use of aircrafts for purposes other than training was quashed as the customs authorities should have proceeded to recover the duty on the basis of the undertaking only when the competent authority […]
The department had challenged the order passed by Tribunal, Mumbai wherein, the tribunal, inter alia, held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and the same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of the Central Excise Tariff.
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.
