Wearit Global Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case the appellant has opted for exemption as per the Notification No. 30/2004-CE where the exemption is conditional. As per Rule 11 (3)(ii) CCR, Cenvat Credit balance will lapse only if the product is exempted absolutely under Section 5A of Central Excise Act. But since […]
Bharat Hotels Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Demand could be made under Undertaking only when Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) found that use of aircraft was not in accordance with permit granted. Where DGCA had not initiated any proceedings against assessee and in fact had renewed the permit from time to […]
There is no error in the finding recorded by the Commissioner in this regard, as indeed the appellant did try to evade payment of service tax by treating the amount as a security deposit when in fact it was clearly an advance, which fact was very specifically mentioned in the Agreement. The intention to evade payment of service tax by suppression of material facts is writ large.
Verizon India Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The case of Revenue is that the location of service provider/appellant is in India and further in terms of Rule 9 of POPS, the service provided, being intermediary services, the location of the service provider under Rule 9 of POPS, shall be the place […]
CESTAT held that buying and selling of SIM cards and recharge coupons does not amount to providing business auxiliary service (BAS)
Chimes Aviation Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Confiscation and customs duty recovery order against Chimes Aviation Private Limited for use of aircrafts for purposes other than training was quashed as the customs authorities should have proceeded to recover the duty on the basis of the undertaking only when the competent authority […]
CESTAT Delhi held that wrong classification of goods or claiming of ineligible exemption notification doesn’t amount to mis-declaration or mis-statement.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant produced all the evidence and documents contending that mobile phones were purchased from open market in Delhi. However, customs department failed to satisfy the onus that the said mobile phones were smuggled in nature. Accordingly, goods released.
CESTAT held that interest is payable for default in depositing the tax by the due date voluntarily or after determination of the amount of duty under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Delhi held that the appellant had done only test production and hence duty demand on the same is unsustainable in law.
