CESTAT Delhi held that benefit of the exemption Notification No. 52-2003 is available subject to some conditions, the same is to be strictly interpreted.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the services in question have already been settled to be the eligible input services, the Cenvat credit thereof cannot be denied to the assessee.
CESTAT Delhi held that Customs Broker failed to verify the correctness of the documents, violated the obligation as a custom broker under CBLR, 2013, accordingly, revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that pipes, used in manufacture- production of oil needs repair- replacement, are capital goods. Hence, no excise duty can be charged on the scrap of the pipes produced- generated during the repair or maintenance of the pipes.
JMK Energy Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that simply because there are four other alternative means through which Portable Solar Home Electric Light – HANS 300 and HANS 150 can be charged, it doesn’t mean that they are not solar power based devices. Facts- M/s JMK Energy, New Delhi filed this […]
CESTAT Delhi held that imported goods are liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act as restricted goods are imported in violation of the provisions of ITC(HS) Import Policy and the goods were not correctly valued.
HC Held that, no Service Tax can be levied on the activity of take-away of food items as it would amount to sale of goods wherein, element of service such as dining facility, washing area and clearing of the tables are not involved.
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.
