Consequently, the assessable value and duty must be redetermined. The goods were correctly held to be liable for confiscation under section 111(m) but were not actually confiscated nor any redemption fine was imposed.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, proceed to imagine grounds for enhancement of the value and dealt with them. This exercise was really not required to be undertaken by the Commissioner (Appeals).
CESTAT Delhi held that interest is payable on amount deposited during the course of investigation and refunded back due to NIL. Interest is payable at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till the date of refund.
CESTAT ruled extended demand period unsustainable without proven intent to evade tax, setting aside Rs. 11 Cr excise duty demand on Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandatory on account of shortage detected during the course of search. Accordingly, penalty upheld.
CESTAT Delhi held that in absence of evidence of over-valuation of export goods, the transaction value was wrongly rejected under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Thus, value declared in shipping bills accepted.
CESTAT Delhi rules Mediclaim processing charges as part of healthcare services, exempting them from service tax in Life Care Hospital Ltd. vs CGST Commissioner case.
CESTAT Delhi held that the amount of redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order is equal to the value of the goods itself, the same is harsh, accordingly, concluded that the amount of redemption fine must be reduced.
Pankaj Ispat Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Forfeited amount for Order Cancellation was not consideration for any service, and therefore not subject to service tax
In Topaz Service Corporation Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi), it was ruled that Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services should only tax pure service contracts, excluding composite contracts with goods.
