CESTAT Mumbai held that mis-classification/ mis-declaration of goods merely on the basis of statement of importer not justifiable as department failed to discharged burden of proof with proper evidence. Accordingly, appeal allowed in favour of appellant.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad has set aside a service tax demand against Triton Communication, ruling that the company was a mediator, not a service provider.
CESTAT Mumbai held that double payment of amount of customs duty is only a deposit with government and hence question of applying limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act would not arise. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that interest u/s. 75A is payable at the rate specified in section 27A of the Customs Act from date after expiry of the period of one month of ‘let export order’ to date of payment of drawback. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
CESTAT Kolkata has ruled that excess service tax can be adjusted beyond the immediate succeeding month or quarter, allowing BSNL to claim a refund of over ₹11 lakh.
CESTAT rules that the 60% abatement on restaurant services must be excluded when calculating the small-scale industry exemption limit, reversing a tax demand.
Assessee submitted that these invoices were genuine, shared with Exclusive Motors, and disclosed to investigators. They argued that Bentley had no role in the customs declarations filed in India and could not be blamed for the importer’s omissions.
CESTAT Kolkata ruled on the timely filing of an appeal, stating that without proof of service, the date an attested copy was provided can be considered the date of service.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty to be levied on CIF value and cost of freight for transport via air to be restricted to 20% of Free on Board [FOB] value of the goods. Hence, demand of differential duty sustained.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled that demurrage charged by a shipping company is not a separate taxable service but is linked to the exempt service of goods transportation.
