CESTAT Delhi held that interest free advances received by the foreign exporter not includible in the value of goods supplied to India when advances are for expansion of production facility and future production activity.
CESTAT Delhi held that additional incentive received by the dealer for meeting certain targets is in the form of trade discount and is not a payment for any service. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations.
CESTAT Delhi upholds the absolute confiscation of disputed gold as it was reasonably believed to be smuggled and appellant failed to discharge his burden to prove that the golds was not smuggled gold.
CESTAT Delhi held that the Deputy Commissioner is not empowered to issue an assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, after the goods have already been cleared for home consumption.
On the plain reading of Rule 11 (3) (i) (ii), it is clear that as per sub-clause (2), the credit shall be lapsed only if the exemption under the Notification is absolute that means in case of conditional Notification the provision of lapsing of credit will not apply.
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 […]
