CESTAT Mumbai held that the provisions of service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, set aside tax recovery from M/s Singapore Airlines as deemed provider of online information data base access or retrieval service.
CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
Sree Rajendra Textiles Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute that after adjudication / assessment, the appellant did remit the CVD plus BCD and the same was not under protest and, as could be seen from the pleadings as well as the orders of both the lower authorities, the said adjudication / […]
There would be difference if a person was engaged in proving any service connected with the making or preparation of the advertisement and a case where a person merely complied with the instruction of the clients for printing the contents supplied by the client thus, the activity of printing of advertisement content on PVC materials amounted to “manufacture”, and therefore, service tax was not leviable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that with the recovery of duty, imports stand regularized and hence section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 becomes inapplicable. Accordingly, confiscation and penalty set aside.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that confiscation of already exported goods not possible under section 113 of the Customs Act because once the goods are exported, Indian Customs has no control over the goods and therefore, they cannot be confiscated.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the activity of loading and unloading of goods was instantly for transportation and therefore said services were classified as Goods Transport Agency and not Cargo Handling Services accordingly exempted under notification no. 17/2009.
CESTAT Mumbai held that CENVAT Credit is duly available against debit notes that contains substantially the same information as prescribed in rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellant has duly reversed the CENVAT Credit on inputs used in respect of finished goods contained in the broken bottles of beverages, the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the same.
CESTAT Kolkata held that refund of tax paid under mistake is not barred by period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Refund granted to the appellant.
