Synthokem Labs Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The only issue remains now is as to whether the case in hand was merely a case of wrong apportionment of credit between the appellants both units, a bonafide clerical error or it was a case of intentional malafide intention to evade payment of […]
Sherly Sany Vs C.C, Cochin (CESTAT Bangalore) It is arbitrary not to give option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation to the person in possession of Gold While quashing an order of the customs authorities, CESTAT, Bangalore held that the order of confiscation without offering an option to pay fine to the person in […]
Nizar Moulavi Abdul Khader Vs Commissioner of Customs Mangalore (CESTAT Bangalore) Order-in-Original records a finding that gold was found in the foot band worn for medical purpose on both the feet of the appellant, well hidden/covered with black socks, shoes put over them. This is claimed as having been found on the ‘person of the […]
IDP Education India Private Limited Vs Additional Director General of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) It is undisputed that the appellant has an agreement only with IDP Australia. The appellant recruits or facilitates students in India, but does not get any remuneration from Australian universities. For the students who are recruited or admitted by the university […]
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Appellant blended 5% ethanol with 95% motor spirit to form EBMS – such blending doesn’t amount to manufacture – final duty payable on EBMS. Facts- The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Motor spirit. The motor spirit is blended with Ethanol for the purpose of […]
Brief issue involved in the matter is that whether the credit on inputs and capital goods / services used in fabrication, erection, installation of towers and shelters is admissible or not. Further, issue also involves that whether extended period can be invoked in the present matter.
The appellant received patterns from their customers to whom they supply the casting manufactured using the patterns. In one of the order the total cost of pattern was amortized and accordingly the appellant did not took into consideration the value of pattern while clearing the additional order.
CESTAT held that sales promotion and marketing being essential character of the bundle of services have to be classified under ‘Business Auxiliary Service’.
Ferryman Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Absolute discretion of Customs Authority either to order absolute confiscation or impose fine in lieu of confiscation CESTAT Delhi held that the confiscating officer under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 has the absolute discretion to either impose fine in lieu of confiscation or […]
Service tax had to be levied only for consideration received for service, therefore, the entire demand of service tax on reimbursable expenses collected from clients for the period post 1.5.2006 was set aside. However, to the extent assessee had collected any amount representing service tax on such expenses and interest thereon from clients, the same need to be deposited with the Government in terms of Section 73A of the Finance Act.
