B.L. Goel & Company Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in running Works Contract Services and services of construction of residential complexes during the period 2013-14 till 2017-2018 (June 2017). Show cause notice dated 23.04.2019 was issued demanding service […]
CESTAT Delhi held that period of limitation should be calculated from the date when the order was served and not from the date when order was dispatched.
Divya Yog Man Dir Trust Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The demand under this head was made only against the appellant Divya Yog Mandir Trust on the amount received by it from M/s. Rajashri Media Pvt. Ltd. for grant of exclusive rights to all audio, visual, audio-visual and text materials of Divya Yog […]
Chhaya Mahalley Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) The issue as to was whether coal transported from pitheads of the mines to the railway sidings would fall within the taxable service defined under section 65 (105) (zzzy) of the Finance Act was examined by the Supreme Court in Singh Transporters. The Supreme […]
Read about the CESTAT decision in the case of Globus Infocomm Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), where the plea for change of classification was accepted. The order directs the re-examination of classification, duty demands, mis-declaration allegations, and penalties.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Value of Imported goods) 2007 the value shall be the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. If such a value is not found, then as per Rule 5 the value shall then be the value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Only if neither is available, Rules 7 can be resorted to.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the office memorandum for reconsideration of recommendation made by designated authority for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
Nitin Industries (Trade Name) Vs Commissioner of Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT find that admittedly, Save and Except taking forward of the credit balance as on 30.06.2017, the appellant have not commenced production or manufacturing activities nor cleared any taxable goods on or after 1.7.2017. Further, debit by the appellant in the electronic […]
CESTAT Delhi held that once the confiscation of seized currency is set aside, the appellant is entitled for refund of said seized currency along with interest. Department cannot deny payment of interest merely for the reason that there is no express statutory provision for the same
HC upheld order passed by Revenue Department confiscating the waste oil and imposing the penalty on import of the same. Held that, re-export of imported waste oil is not allowable as it is prohibited under the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Trans-boundary Movement) Rules, 2008
