Intermediary arranges or facilitates supplies of goods or services or securities between two or more persons and an activity between only two parties cannot be considered as an intermediary service.
Assessee entitled to automatic refund of Extra Duty Deposit without filing of application for refund under Section 27 of Customs Act – CESTAT
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) A show cause notice dated 24.01.2020 was then issued to the appellant proposing to revoke the Customs Broker License of the appellant by considering the show cause notice dated 22.10.2019 issued under the provisions of the Customs Act as the offence report. The appellant […]
CENVAT credit allowed to the extent inputs are used for production of electricity which is transferred free of cost to its sister unit.
CESTAT held that, the appellant is entitled to interest at specified rate from date of deposit to date of refund. BBM Impex Pvt. Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Ultimate use of imported goods cannot be criteria for valuation. Every business man is free to adopt his own way of conducting business
Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro Limited, wherein the amount was deposited during the stage of investigation/audit, this Tribunal have held that on being successful in appeal, interest is allowable under Section 35FF from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Further, […]
Girish Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) On facts, the role of appellant was only to arrange meeting between Devi Das and Habib-uz-Zaman and the appellant neither filed the bill of entry or was involved in clearance of goods. Any action on the part of appellant much before the import of goods could […]
Pegasus Pharmaco India Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) a) Balaji has not commenced commercial production prior to the cut-off date of 31.3.2010 even though a single invoice was issued and therefore, it was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification nor has it claimed it until a […]
Held that duty demand, alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of chewing tobacco, on the basis of assumption and presumption is not permissible
