In this analysis of Tehsildar Koil Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Allahabad rules on time-barred appeals, emphasizing the 30-day limit for filing
CESTAT Allahabad held that in case of foreign export proceeds, the Indian Exporters are not the recipient of services from the Foreign Bank/ intermediary bank. Accordingly, demand of service tax as service recipient on bank charges thereon unjustified.
CESTAT Allahabad held that SAD (Special Additional Duty) is not leviable on the goods cleared in DTA as samples from EOU by availing of exemption from payment of Sales Tax/ VAT.
CESTAT Allahabad dismisses appeal due to delay in filing beyond 30 days, citing statutory limitations. Detailed analysis of the ruling’s implications.
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable
CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
CESTAT Allahabad held that as per provisions of section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting of adjournment beyond three times is unjustifiable. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax is leviable on services relating to health & fitness by way of teaching yoga and meditation under the category of ‘Health and Fitness Services’.
CESTAT Allahabad held that charge of clandestine removal cannot be imputed in absence of any evidence or in absence of an independent investigation. Accordingly, demand unjustified.
