Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notices after passing of final order by Tribunal, with respect to subject matter of refund, was wholly against provisions of law
Whether wavering of pre-deposit on the grounds of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 existing prior to August 06, 2014 is feasible?
CESTAT set aside demand of service tax on refundable security deposit on the grounds that security deposit is refundable deposit and it cannot be included in the value of taxable service.
CESTAT Held that services of sales commission service don’t qualify as input service and accordingly Cenvat Credit on the same not available.
CESTAT held that rejection of refund claimed by exporter on flimsy grounds would defeat the purpose of rebate scheme and traps the exporters under unnecessary litigations.
Held that freight incurred from the place of removal to the buyer’s premises is not includible in the assessable value and accordingly excise is not payable on the same.
Held that antecedents cannot be an evidence for the alleged undervaluation of the goods. At best antecedents may be a reason for creating a suspicion and be a reason for causing an enquiry or Investigation.
Held that demand of services tax on the basis of TDS /26AS statements/ 3CD Statements are not sustainable.
Held that revenue needs to establish that the goods lying or found in the shop/ godwon of the assessee are not duty paid.
Held that a person from whom goods are seized has the right to seek provisional release immediately even as adjudication proceedings takes its own course.
