In present facts of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal gave directions to dispose of the refund applications within 3 months after the filing of new refund application on the basis of observations made on procedure of refund applications.
Divi’s Laboratories Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is submitted on behalf of appellant that appellant is an SEZ Unit. The chief contention of the Department for the part-rejection of the refund claim relates to service tax amount paid by the appellant on ocean freight services which is not included/covered under the […]
Nathi Mal Rugan Mal Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) The appellants claim that they have cooperated with the investigation and have deposited Rs. 70,00,000 (Rupees Seventy Lakhs only) towards the duty liability, if any, that may arise on the past imports after completion of investigation; in respect of the impugned goods also they have […]
Appellant contended that he had obtained the authorization required in Regulation 11 (a) of the CBLR, 2013 but did not meet the importer directly instead had obtained it from a middleman. The Appellant contended that all the documentation along with the bill of entry were proper and legitimate.
It was categorically stated that when the TDS amount has been borne by the assessee and only the consideration for the services as agreed upon by the parties has been paid to the service provider, the TDS amount cannot be included in the taxable value for determining the Service Tax liability
The Appellant failing to pay its Service Tax Liability under RCM in a stipulated time but shown as liability in the Service tax Return under the Finance Act, 1994, which was repealed and was replaced by the Goods and Services Tax
Since the Custom Broker was liable to verify genuineness of importer-exporter code, IEC number, identity of client to prevent facilitation of export prohibited goods, therefore, custom broker was liable for penalty in case of breach of KYC norms and mandatory obligations under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
Bharat Mines & Minerals Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Customs & Central (CESTAT Delhi) I find that the invoices in question were issued by the Chartered Accountant- Anuj Maheshwari and Company, copy of which is available in the appeal record. The invoices reads as ‘professional consultancy for export against export consignment as per […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs India Land and Properties Limited (CESTAT Chennai) exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly and if the case does not fall within the parameters, the benefit cannot be given. Any benefit of doubt must be given to the Revenue and should be decided against the appellant. Once the threshold of applicability of […]
Since he confiscated gold was not of Foreign origin and smuggled into India and the confiscated Indian Currency which had been claimed by assessee was not established or proved to be the sale proceeds of smuggled Gold, therefore, the order was passed to release the 6 pcs confiscated gold bars and Indian Currency to assessee being the rightful owner of the goods.
