Vrl Logistics Ltd Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad) No post import condition in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. – CESTAT quashes Tax & Penalty demand, confiscation of aircrafts not sustainable We find that the issue in the present matters relates to the grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3- 2002 as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus. […]
Acme Ceramics Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT held that reversal of credit and payment of interest thereon, can be adjusted from the payment of Rs. 2 lacs already made by the appellant. We find that the Tribunal/Court in the judgments cited by the appellant held that even if the assessee agreeing to reverse […]
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that department cannot self assign to itself the duty of declaring bad in law the certificate issued to the importer by Ministry of Renewable Energy or decide title of the goods, even when no one is disputing ownership.
Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that appeal can be disposed of only on threshold point that whether the entire case involves the Revenue neutrality or otherwise. There is no dispute that all the goods on which the duty was demanded have been imported duly paid […]
Praveg Communications India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case, the appellant’s activity being of setting-up of stalls for exhibition or events cannot be considered to be classified under Interior Decorator’s service for the reason that there is neither any element of beautification of space nor any provision […]
Ghasiram Gokulchand Vs C.C. Jamnagar (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the instant case, CESTAT find that the genuineness of the MoA dated 22.11.2012 has not been doubted. It is also noted that the LDT mentioned in the MoA dated 05.11.2012 between Ace Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Alang Auto & Gen. Engg. Pvt. Ltd. was not found to […]
Pvn Fabrics Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the demand of duty on cylinder used for printing of packaging material, we find that though the invoice was issued for sale of cylinder but the same was not cleared from the factory and the same was used within the factory since it is used […]
CESTAT held that since there is no suppression of fact, demand of extended period is not sustainable. Penalty imposed was unwarranted
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for fixing quantum of redemption fine but the same has to be done, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that purchase of land from landowners and re-sale of the same to Real Estate Developers doesn’t fall under the category of ‘Real Estate Agency Service’ and hence not liable to service tax.
