Section 11 – Power of adjustment cannot be exercised for demand of tax/interest/penalty which is sub judice by Central Excise officers.
CESTAT held that the value of scrap arising during the process of manufacture by the job worker is not included in the value of the goods cleared by the job worker to the principal manufacturer for the purpose of levying excise duty.
Merely because a note was given in the balance sheet of the appellant company that the service recipient’s company is an Associates Company of the appellant does not alter the legal status of independent entity of both the companies.
Custom brokers are required to conduct all possible enquiries through independent reliable sources/ documents to verify the credentials of the clients. No such effort made by the appellant proves that they have failed to observe due diligence in this regard.
When the unit was de-bonded and no dues certificate was issued to the assessee, it was the duty of the officer, who gave no dues certificate to verify the contents whether any dues liability was pending against the assessee or he had correctly declared the true facts for de-bonding of unit. When the concerned officer had de-bonded the unit along with no dues certificate, allegation of suppression could not be alleged against assessee in this case.
Rakesh Kumar Tibra Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi) In view of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 3.5.2019, in the case of Lucky Tobacco Co. Ltd. and Others, arising from the same impugned order-in-original, we find that the cause of action against these appellants also does not survive. In this view of […]
RMA & Associates Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The appellant was engaged in providing chartered accountant services. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding the non-payment of service tax on the amount representing reimbursement of expenses like conveyance, travelling and mobile expenses. The issue, in respect of reimbursable expenses has been […]
The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellant had provided cargo handling service for the period 01.04.2007 to 30.05.2007 and mining service for the period 01.06.2007.
No limitation is applicable to claim of Service Tax refund claim filed after GST introduction due to overriding effect of Section 142(8)(b) of CGST Act and claim can be denied only on grounds of unjust enrichment.
Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when the goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’.
