CESTAT Delhi held that simply because a suspicion has arisen in a particular case it is not sufficient ground to suspend the licence of the customs broker who handled such imports/exports.
Shree Rishabhdev Marble and Minerals Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that the present proceedings before this Court emanate from a letter dated 6.1.2020 which cannot be treated as a proper show cause notice. No reason or evidence to support the allegation has been brought on record by the respondent […]
CESTAT Delhi held that service charges for pre-payment or foreclosure of loan amount by the customer cannot be treated as taxable service and is not chargeable to service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that an audit report cannot be regarded as an order of determination under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme. Accordingly, audit report is akin to an order of determination under the relevant sections of the Scheme.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the department has accepted that the services of appellant is classified under ‘mining services’, it cannot, simultaneously, classify the same under ‘Technical Testing and Analysis’ and demand service tax thereon.
Apex Court held that unjust enrichment not attracted where amount is deposited during investigation and pendency of appeal, as such deposits are under protest or in the nature of pre-deposit.
CESTAT Delhi held that services of advertisement in print-media is exempt in terms of negative list of services under section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the services of advertisement in print-media.
Ratnawat Infra Construction Company LLP Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Situation which arises in this particular type of business of developing real estate, the CBIC have considered and have clarified that the developer/builder is entitled to service tax credit on cancellation of bookings, wherein the builder have refunded the amount of booking […]
CESTAT Delhi held that mere manual segregation of plastic scrap from the rest of the scrap is neither manufacturing nor producing the plastic scrap and hence no central excise duty is chargeable on removal of the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that to maintain judicial discipline, the Assistant Commissioner had necessarily to implement the decision of the Tribunal. Denial of refund pursuant thereto is unjustifiable.
