Commissioner of Customs Vs Kamdar Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Chennai) It is noted that the goods were specifically imported for meeting the requirements during the pandemic. Drones were intended to be used for monitoring the public as to whether there is violation of the restrictions for travel and gathering of people. It is also […]
AGFA Healthcare Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) On perusal of the documents, it is seen that there is no dispute that the appellant has paid excess duty of Rs.29,57,931/- after reassessment of the bills of entry by extending the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The refund has been rejected on the ground […]
ld. Counsel for appellant has also raised an argument that the demand under MRSA cannot sustain for the period prior to 16.5.2008 when the transactions of the very same nature have been subjected to service tax under Information Technology Software Services after such services became taxable. It is to be stated that ITSS is not a category carved out of MRSA.
Setwin Shipping Agency Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Looking into the circumstances of the case where the custom Broker prima facie has some documents; the person who handed over the documents to the Broker is available; it is not alleged that the exporters were fictitious and the fraudulent persons used the high security IDs […]
Hanil Automotive India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs-III (CESTAT Chennai) The CESTAT Chennai has held that the declared prices cannot be reviewed without any evidence to the effect that the relation between the appellant and the foreign supplier has influenced the declared price or to the effect that there was a flow back of money […]
Ford India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) At paragraph 41 of the Show Cause Notice, it is inter alia recorded that M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. have been constantly mis-declaring the description; that they have not only mis-declared but also misled the Customs; that the invoice descriptions themselves do not correctly represent […]
The issue under consideration is whether department cannot force upon the assessee to reverse credit under Rule 6(3)(i) merely for the reason that no intimation under Rule 6 of CCR?
Lancor Holdings Limited Vs The Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) There is no dispute as to the eligibility or otherwise for refund except the claim being rejected as barred by limitation. There is also no dispute that both the service provider and the service recipient having merged into a single entity, there […]
The issue under consideration is regarding rejection of claim for refund of the service tax under Section 11B.
The issue under consideration is whether the transfer of goods is by way of hiring the charter vessel is taxable under Service Tax as declared service?
