Appellant imported Paddle of canoes. Goods are manufactured out of carbon fibres with wooden handle. Appellant sought to classify goods under heading 95062900
CESTAT Delhi held that assisting the registration of the vehicles with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) tax cannot be considered a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand of the service tax set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-valuation of goods without first rejecting the transaction value of the goods is not in accordance with law. Show cause notice without proposal of rejection of transaction value or demanding differential duty is both speculative and presumptive.
CESTAT Delhi held that profit on ocean freight charges cannot be termed as consideration for service and hence service tax is not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that authority is not permitted to retain the excess amount paid by the appellant because of an error in EDI system. Authority is duty bound to refund such amount.
Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error while holding that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be invoked to sanction the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit lying with the appellant much prior to April, 2017 that too in cash as per Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017.
Commissioner Central Excise & Central GST Vs Navdeep Traders (CESTAT Delhi) Issue- whether the activity of the respondent is a works contract service and thus the value of the blasting material/explosives is to be excluded from the amount received by the assessee for blasting at customers site for excavation of sand stone. The respondent – […]
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of transaction value and determining the value based on the contemporaneous value available in National Import Database (NIDB) correct as quantity of goods is much larger than what was declared; buyer and seller are related parties and grade of guar gum is mis-declared.
IOCL was not entitled for the conversion of DEEC shipping bills to drawback shipping bills since it was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the competent authority and for the reason for non-filing of the requisite documents in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act as well as the Circular.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
