he appellant no doubt has filed Bill of Entry in the present case. But the same has been filed on the basis of material given to him by his client. He has expressed his bonafide and denied in-correctness of those documents. Merely because there is evidence on record to falsify the said statement, Customs Broker cannot be held liable for the penal action.
Spray King Agro Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Facts- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Brass parts of agricultural products falling under Chapter sub- heading 8424900 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As per the Notification No. 03/2005-CE dated 24.02.2005, Brass parts of Agriculture Products are exempted from […]
The law laid down in Calcutta Club is that a club and its members are one and the same and the club is formed for the purpose for mutual benefit of its members. Therefore, any amount paid by the members to the club and the services rendered by the club to its members are self service and cannot be taxed.
Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 is not a provision for charging of tax; it is limited to determination of location of taxable entity as an adjunct to the charging provision in section 66 B of Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order has not evaluated the impugned activity from that perspective.
The law laid down in Calcutta Club is that a club and its members are one and the same and the club is formed for the purpose for mutual benefit of its members.
The Government has been simplifying the law and procedure relating to imports through courier from time to time. Accordingly, lot of trust and reliance has been placed on the courier agencies. A very clear procedure has been put in place by way of Courier Regulations to stream line the imports through Courier mode.
When the appellants have been given permission to clear the goods in DTA by the Development Commissioner (DC), the department cannot then vaguely allege that they are not similar goods.
Charge of clandestine removal and duty evasion was a serious charge having civil consequences upon the assessee. Such charge could not be confirmed unless there was sufficient corroborative evidence which lead to the inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal and only on the basis of third party evidence the charge of clandestine removal was not sustainable.
Hivelm Industries Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) It is not in dispute that the deemed export did not attract any Excise Duty and hence, it is not the duty of the appellant / taxpayer to repeatedly plead before the authorities that the project in which it was involved was a deemed […]
KEC International Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Central Goods & Service Tax (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) The CESTAT, New Delhi in M/s. KEC International Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Goods & Service Tax (Appeals) [Excise Appeal No. 52907 of 2019 dated May 10, 2022] set aside the order passed by the Revenue […]
