‘Casino vessels’ could not be classified as ‘pleasure boats’ as the vessel was a supply vessel used for transport of persons and goods, the correct classification would be heading no. 8901 90 00 which covers’ Other vessels for transport of the goods and other vessels for transport of both persons and goods’ and not under heading No. 8903 9990. More so, the goods falling under heading no. 8901 were exempted under Not. 21/2002 read with Notification No. 20/2006.
Shri. Haji Sumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai has held that the transaction value adopted by the importer cannot be rejected merely based on export declarations received from Turkish Customs, public ledger and Commodity Trade Statistics Data (Comtrade). Shri. Haji Sumar, who is one of the partners of M/s. Diamond Traders, has […]
Show Cause Notice mentions the leviablity of Service tax on the amount received towards the compensation for non supply of the agreed quantity of manganese ore under Section 64E(e) of Finance Act which is even otherwise is purely the transaction sale of the iron ore to the Appellant by M/s Amit Mines. Thus, the compensation amount is towards default on the sale of the goods. The sale could not be effected and, therefore, Appellant received the liquidated damage by way of raising the debit note which was honoured by M/s AML. Thus, this amount of compensation/ liquidated damage cannot be treated as service under Section 64 E(e) of the Act.
Max Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that service tax was not payable on surrender charges deducted from the fund value of policy holder on pre-mature withdrawal, as it was not for asset management but a penalty. The Tribunal, considering clarification by CBEC […]
CESTAT Mumbai has allowed refund of Cenvat credit on export of Scientific & Technical Consultancy services. Considering the pricing method, it held that Rule 3 and not Rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 was applicable.
CESTAT Delhi has held that mere cabling of various parts of agricultural machine (laser level transmitter, laser receivers, control boxes connecting cables and rechargeable battery packs) so as to let them function as a complete machine does not amount to manufacture and hence benefit of Sl. No. 399(A) of Not No. 12/2012-Cus. cannot be denied.
t is apparently clear that appellant was providing cleaning service through manpower engaged under its control and supervision and not supplied manpower to the service receiver to undertake cleaning service under the control and supervision of the service receiver and and the same cannot be treated as Manpower, recruitment or Supply Services.
M/s Jubilant Life Science Limited Vs Additional Director General (Adj) (CESTAT Delhi) Following the decision of the High Court of Orissa in the case of Tata Steel v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 7917 of 2009],wherein the Explanation to Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, […]
CESTAT Chennai has held that late fee imposed on the appellant for delay in filing of Bill of Entry was not proper, since the delay had occurred only because the original importer had failed to clear the goods.
claim of refund was denied on the ground that the duty payment challans were not been produced. CESTAT Ahmedabad however observed that the amount had been deposited, received by the department through banker’s cheque and had also been realized, and that no challan was taken by the assessee. It was held that even in the absence of challan, where such payment has been made correctly, the assessee was entitled for refund.
