CESTAT Delhi held that leasing vacant land for business purposes was not taxable under Renting of Immovable Property Service before 01.07.2010. It ruled that the 2010 amendment expanded the scope of taxation prospectively and set aside the demand for the earlier period.
CESTAT Delhi held that tax authorities cannot compel an assessee to adopt a particular compliance option under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Since the appellant had availed only proportionate eligible credit, the demand under Rule 6(3) was set aside.
CESTAT held that although Customs rightly rejected the declared transaction value, the re-determination of value was invalid because Rule 8 was applied without following the mandatory sequential valuation rules. Only the duty demand relating to leather straps was sustained.
CESTAT held that once shipping bills were assessed and Let Export Orders were issued, customs authorities could not subsequently modify those assessments without following the statutory remedies. The Tribunal consequently set aside the denial of DEPB benefits and related demands.
The appellant claimed to be only a commission agent, but witness statements and records showed involvement in procurement, logistics, documentation, and receipt of export proceeds. The Tribunal held that these facts established participation in the export scheme and justified penalty.
Karthik Papers Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (CESTAT Delhi) The appeal was filed by Shree Karthik Papers Limited against the portion of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, which restored the assessment on a turnover of ₹1,51,28,219 as inter-State sales and restored penalty of ₹25,64,365. […]
P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, examined multiple appeals challenging an order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur. The Commissioner had confiscated seized silver jewellery, confirmed a customs duty demand of ₹1,44,04,165 along […]
The Tribunal held that Rule 11(3) does not apply where common inputs are used for both exempted and dutiable products. Credit balances could continue to be utilised for payment of duty on dutiable goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that transportation and distribution of newspapers by road constituted services covered under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that incidental loading and unloading activities did not alter the essential character of the service.
The Tribunal observed that multiple departmental orders and ER-1 returns consistently reflected classification under CETI 2403 99 10. The later stand taken in the show cause notice was found to be inconsistent with the department’s earlier conduct. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
