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.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of harsh punishment of revocation of Customs Broker Licence in absence of any active or passive facilitation in mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods unjustified.
Explore the details of the case Bhagwati Power & Steels Ltd. Vs Commissioner decided by CESTAT Delhi. Understand the verdict on the allowance of Cenvat Credit for installing an SMS Plant under modernization and renovation clauses.
In the Hindustan Motors Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs and CESTAT Delhi case, the appellate authority’s power to reject a refund claim based on grounds not indicated in the show cause notice is discussed.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of benefit of Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES) based on the show cause notice which is time barred is unjustified.
Unpacking the CESTAT Delhi ruling on Gurukripa Yuvraj Veg & Non-veg Restaurant regarding service tax exemption based on AC facility. Key takeaways and implications.
CESTAT Delhi upheld service tax demand for Manan Infra Development Pvt Ltd. Key insights on ‘Construction of Complex’ service tax evasion and more.
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.
