The issue that arises for consideration is that whether the appellants are eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax of commissions paid to commission agents in regard to sales promotion of their products. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi submitted that the department has denied the credit alleging that it is post manufacturing activity.
Explore the case of Surya Alumex vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi). Understand the implications of Rule 4(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on Cenvat credit and depreciation claims.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi decision in Shahid Ali vs. Principal Commissioner, focusing on allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration in ‘Food Supplements’ imports. Learn why the adjudicating authority’s penalty imposition on the proprietorship firm and its proprietor was deemed double jeopardy.
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Bansal Steel Power Limited vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak, highlighting the flawed investigation leading to the denial of credit on returned goods. Uncover crucial insights for businesses dealing with similar issues.
Since assessee could not discharge their responsibility of proving non-smuggled nature of the seized foreign marked gold as per section 123 of Customs Act thus, the confiscation of the gold bars, gold coins and small pieces of gold under section 111(d) and section 111(i) was correct.
CESTAT Delhi’s ruling in National Steel & Agro Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner – Analysis of Rule 6(3A) in proportionate credit division. Crucial insights for manufacturers on compliance.
Even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be evoked only when suppression‟ was shown to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner had not recorded any finding that even if assessee had suppressed the fact of having received the amount, it was willful and with an intent evade payment of service.
Explore the case of Volvo Auto India vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi). Learn about customs duty, valuation rules, and the impact of expenses on the assessable value.
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Allahabad) 1. Excise Appeal 70628 of 2019 has been filed by M/s. Parle Agro Pvt Ltd1 to modify the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner, CGST(Appeals), Noida2, to the extent that interest should be granted @12% instead of @6%, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order […]
Since authorized courier was prohibited from opening and verifying contents of imported consignments and it had not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 could not be sustained.
