CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
CESTAT Delhi held that receipt of service doesn’t qualify as Manpower Supply Service and hence demand of service tax from service receipt under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) applicable to Manpower Supply Service unsustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per rule 4(b)(iii) of the point of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in case payment is received before change in effective rate of tax and invoice is issued after change in effective rate of tax, then, point of taxation will be date of payment. Hence, demand set aside on advance receipt.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere non-disclosure of the receipts in the service tax return would not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax. Hence, demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that refund of excise duty paid on Henna Powder and Henna Paste in terms of notification no. 11/2017-CE (NT) dated 24.04.2017 rejected as refund claim was not filed within a period of six months from the date of issuance of notification.
Analysis of CESTAT Delhi’s decision in Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Goods & Service regarding the denial of interest on a refund of Cenvat Credit.
CESTAT Delhi held that if the audit points out some wrong assessment which was not pointed out by the officer scrutinizing the ER-1 return, the fault lies at the doorstep of the officer. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation bad-in-law.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Delhi order on Agarwal Aluminiums vs. Commissioner, where area-based excise duty exemption was denied due to production date.
CESTAT Delhi held that when the demand of duty has been settled under SVLDR Scheme, the imposition of penalty would fail on simple ground that if the appellants had applied under the said scheme, they would have paid ‘nil’ duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker licence and penalty action thereof on customs broker justified as he duly facilitated export of Prohibited items i.e. Gutkha pouches.
