CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable as the only declaration made by the respondent is the Bill of Entry and the goods were found as per the declaration in the Bill of Entry.
Directors are providing service of renting of immovable property not as Directors of appellant, whereas they are providing the said service in their individual capacity as owners of premises
CESTAT held that where service provider had deployed his employees in manufacturing premises of appellant for specified job works, the same cannot be held as Manpower Supply Services.
Refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original notification no.102/2007-Customs. It was also held that period of limitation for first time cannot be introduced through subordinate legislation or notification.
CESTAT held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007
Leading Point Powertronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Delhi South (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of CESTAT Delhi in Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner, CGST, Noida 2022 (380) ELT 219 (Tri.-All), held that interest on refund of amount deposited during investigation or deposited during pendency of appeal is allowable under Section 35EE of the […]
Refund claim seeking refund of the excess additional duty of customs paid during the period 26.03.2015 to 22.06.2015 was rightly sanctioned as there was no error on the part of either the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in sanctioning the refund without considering the limitation as both authorities were bound by the order of the Delhi High Court.
Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that general principles of interpretation of the exemption notification that it has to be construed strictly shall not really apply to the SEZ units which are otherwise exempted from the liability of the various duties under the […]
CESTAT Delhi held that jewellery is not liable to confiscation in the absence of any evidence that it is smuggled or it has been made by converting smuggled gold.
CESTAT Delhi held that invocation of extended period of limitation unsustainable as several rounds of audit was conducted and show cause notice for previous period on the same issued was already issued. Hence, department was fully aware of the issue in the question.
