CESTAT Chennai held that in absence of foreign marking and any other cogent evidence, onus is on department to prove that the smuggled nature of the goods.
CESTAT Chennai held the benefit of notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 allowable to tipper body as it is not necessary that the goods cleared into DTA have to be identical to the goods exported by the EOU.
CESTAT Chennai held that service of unloading, transportation and stacking of coal from railway wagons to coal yard cannot be classified under the category of ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency’ service.
Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Chennai) As regards the issue of unjust enrichment, CESTAT find that the appeal has stated that the procedure to be adopted for refund of 4% additional duty of customs is given in Board Circular No. 6/2008- Customs (F. No. 401/104/2007-Cus.III) dated 28.4.2008 and Customs […]
Appellants are not the manufacturer of Aluminium scrap and they have only imported the scrap for manufacture of Aluminium ingots.
CESTAT Chennai held that relevant date of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in case of export of service is the date of realization of the foreign exchange.
CESTAT Chennai held that handling of export cargo is excluded from the purview of service tax. The same is not exempted service. In nut-shell, any activity on which no service tax is payable doesn’t make such activity an exempted service.
CESTAT Chennai held that net quantity after adjusting the gain and loss has to be taken for demand of duty in case of petroleum products.
CESTAT Chennai held that service receiver (appellant) not liable to pay service tax invoking provisions of section 66A of the Finance Act under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) as inspection service is performed in India.
CESTAT held that no Service Tax could be levied on construction of residential complexes prior to 01.07.2010 even when service is rendered either as service simpliciter or as a works contract.
