CESTAT Delhi held that order passed without assigning any reasons is non-speaking order and, accordingly, the same is bad-in-law and is liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that definition of tour operator has been amended from time to time since it was brought into the service tax net. Accordingly, on account of confusion with regard to scope of tour operator service, demand of only normal time period sustained and demand of extended time period set aside.
Once the ST-3 returns are filed, onus lies on Central Excise Officer to meticulously review them. Should there be any discrepancies, the officer must conduct a best judgment assessment under Section 72 and initiate an SCN under Section 73 within the stipulated timeframe. If the officer overlooks any aspect leading to a tax oversight, it’s the officer who bears the responsibility, not the appellant.
CESTAT Delhi held that goods imported are snow goggles and not sunglasses. Accordingly, the goods i.e. snow goggles are classifiable under residual CTH 90049090 as others and cannot fall under CTH 90041000 as sun glasses.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant was buying and selling space on its own account and was not acting on behalf of the shipping lines. Hence, the same is not covered under the definition of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is not chargeable on the services provided in respect of tour undertaken for carrying out Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia by Indian pilgrims considering these as export of service.
CESTAT Delhi held that player fees paid to Ishant Sharma by M/s. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited under the contract is for the activity of playing cricket and not for any promotional activity. Hence, service tax not leviable on the same under ‘Business Support Service’.
CESTAT Delhi held that the gold in question is not proved to be the smuggled gold of foreign origin. Mere purity thereof being equivalent to the purity of foreign gold is wrongly held to be the criteria to hold the melted gold as the gold of foreign origin. Hence, investigation is observed to be faulty.
Trinity International Forwarders, the appellant assessee was a Customs Broker. The assessee had been accused of violated the Regulations of 11(d), 11(e) or 11(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.
The respondent/importer had filed three bills of entry dated 27.01.2021 for clearance of imported goods Zinc Scrap, Saves/Scope which were imported from M/s Olympic Metal, Miami, USA. As the Department noticed that the declared value of the goods was lower than the contemporaneous import of similar goods and that the sale involved an abnormal discount and abnormal rejection from ordinary competitive prices, a query was raised from the importer to provide material/evidence to justify the declared value in terms of Section 17(3) of the Customs Act, 1962
