CESTAT Delhi held that unless there is an undertaking by the principal manufacturer that they would discharge the duty liability (notification no. 83/94-CE), the job worker is liable to discharge duty on the clearances from the premises of job worker.
CESTAT Delhi held that Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) is not liable to pay service tax on their statutory activities performed in terms of ‘The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952’ (EPM & MP Act, 1952).
Delve into the CESTAT Delhi ruling in Shri Satyender Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs case, analyzing penalties imposed without evidence of mens rea for mis-declaration in consignments.
CESTAT Delhi held that the hostel service and education services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and it is the education service that gives the essential character to such bundle. Accordingly, hostel service is not subjected to levy of service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that value of reimbursement of expenditure is not includible in the value of taxable service and accordingly, service tax is not payable on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that if the Bank officials despite verification are not able to detect the fraudulent nature of the documents, how can one expect from CHA who is not even a public official to unearth the dubious plan of the exporter.
Facts regarding non payment of duty by the appellant or in other words the amount retained of sales tax collected from the customer, came to the notice of the Department only through the audit of the records conducted by the Audit Officer.
Discover how CESTAT Delhi’s ruling favored Pine Laminates Pvt. Limited, allowing their refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging rejection based on time limitation.
CESTAT Delhi held that exemption notification should be interpreted strictly. However, once the primary conditions for seeking exemption for GTA are satisfied, exemption cannot be denied for mere procedural lapse.
CESTAT Delhi held that immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to the main noticee is also available to the co-noticees. Accordingly, the impugned order is bad in law.
