CESTAT held that Composition Scheme cannot be denied to the appellants merely on the ground of discharge of service tax under different Head prior to 01.06.2007.
Department denied refund of Pre-deposit for appeal on the ground that dispute related to service tax whereas pre-deposit was made under Excise Duty.
BAPL Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) The Tribunal in the case of Shree Rohini Enterprises – 2017 (346) ELT 461 (Tri-Ahmd.) held that value of deemed export is to be treated as export sale determined on FOB value of export. The same was confirmed by the Supreme Court reported […]
Ramvir Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that the appellant has received full set of documents through the freight forwarder and there was no reason for him to doubt the genuineness of the exporter. Further, as the goods were factory stuffed and sealed, the appellant – CHA has no reason to doubt […]
Jindal Steel & Power Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX (CESTAT Kolkata) It is undisputed that the compensation was received by the Appellant. Coal blocks allocated to the Appellant as well as to several others were cancelled as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, they were allotted to new companies. […]
XL Health Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore) The term ‘notice pay’ mentioned in the employment contract cannot be considered as a service, more specifically as the taxable service inasmuch as neither of the parties to the contract have provided any service to each other. Thus, the phrase ‘service’ defined […]
Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) This Tribunal in the case of CCE vs Western Electronics reported as 2000 (116) ELT 181 (Tri) while relying upon the similar circular as mentioned above has held that packing of the goods into different packs amounts to manufacture and while exporting such goods, the activity […]
It is well settled by decisions of Tribunals and higher forums that for cases of such alleged clandestine manufacture and clearances, fundamental criteria have to be established by the Revenue and there should be tangible evidence of clandestine manufacture and clearance of such goods and not undue inferences or unwarranted assumptions.
Karim Jaria Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import-I) (CESTAT Mumbai) CESTAT held that Reliance on statements alone is too fragile a foundation to build a case of undervaluation; such depositions are reliable only with corroborative support. In the absence of corroboration, test of cross-examination is of essence, as mandated by section 138B of Customs Act, 1962, for […]
United Spirits Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes (CESTAT Bangalore) CESTAT find that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand in respect of various fees paid to the State Government in respect of manufacture, import and sale of alcoholic liquor. The adjudicating authority, though dropped the demand on licence fee, but confirmed the demand on […]
