Held that revenue alleged that the assessee has collected service tax payment. However, revenue failed to support the allegation with any corroborative evidence. Demand of service tax unsustainable
Diamond Creations Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Coming to the contention of revenue regarding forgery of the textile committee report, we do not find any reason to go into the detail as the fact that reports were forged does not impact the classification assuming the reports relied upon by the department are the original one as […]
Held that it is settled that the government dues against the assessee cannot be recovered from the owner of the property which was leased out to the assessee against whom the dues are pending
Held that the demand of services tax is not sustainable on the basis of TDS /26AS statements.
Held that Appellant lost the ownership of the goods as soon as let export order was issued and hence Appellant cannot be held responsible if the importer situated at Iran had given instruction to change the port.
CESTAT held that Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) agent service is admissible input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT held that in case of PLA balance, it is not deposited as a duty but it is deposited as advance towards the duty. The PLA Amount takes the color of excise duty only when it is utilized for payment of duty on clearance of excisable goods. The unspent balance of PLA is only advance not duty therefore, Section 11B is not applicable.
Shobha Plastics Pvt Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The Principal Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad vide impugned order has imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act upon the appellants Jayesh Mehta and Harshad Vadodaria on the ground that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer in importing the goods by way […]
CESTAT held that assessee is not liable for payment of either excise duty or cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on empty packaging material of cenvatable input.
Held that buyer’s premises cannot, in law, be a place of removal under Section 4. Demand duty thereon is unsustainable in law
