Neither the applicability of the legal provisions particularly with reference to the Arms Act and the Rules and various notifications had been considered nor any reasoning had been given with reference thereto, therefore, CESTAT quashed the Customs duty demand on the import of antique finished rifles with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and decide the same giving proper and substantive reasoning in support thereof.
CESTAT Delhi held that G-Watch i.e. Smart Watch is classifiable under 8157 6290 and not under CTH 9102 1900. Accordingly, benefit of entry serial no. 955 of notification no. 15/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009 doesn’t apply.
CESTAT Delhi held that the most appropriate classification of canned pineapple slices will be CTH 0804. However, duty demand of extended period set aside as there was confusion in department regarding classification of canned sliced pineapples.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the goods are cleared for home consumption after examination and assessment, unless there is an evidence to support, demand u/s. 28 invoking extended period of limitation cannot be raised unless there is evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts are proven.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license unjustified as there is no evidence that shows that the customs broker was aware about the mis-declaration of weight of pan masala as declared in the shipping bill.
Read the comprehensive analysis of the CESTAT Delhi order where the Commissioner (Appeals) upholds the service tax refund claim by Mobinteco Ltd. The decision revolves around the non-violation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, offering insights into the intricacies of service tax provisions and relevant dates for refund claims. Get a detailed understanding of the case, the arguments presented, and the implications for similar situations.
CESTAT Delhi held that any penalty or compensation received for any loss or damage caused by breach or non performance of the terms of the contract is not by way of consideration. Accordingly, service tax is not leviable on the same.
Commercial training or coach services that were provided by the Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) were liable to service tax as Commissioner had recorded a finding, after careful examination of the activities undertaken by the Indian Institute that it was providing training or coaching for a consideration. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner to decide whether out of the total demand that had been confirmed, Indian Institute would be entitled to the benefit of – Input credit of the expenses incurred as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; and the value of study material supplied; and cum-tax benefit under section 67 of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that area based exemption in terms of Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 available as manufacture of High Security Registration Plates is concluded in Himachal Pradesh only.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as demand is based on the records of the assessee or other records which DGCEI could obtain through income tax department. Scrutiny of such records should have been done within time limit.
