Icon Industries Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) was introduced by way of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 by the Central Government. The main objective of the scheme is to provide for the settlement of pending disputes related to indirect taxes. The Appellant although applied under the said scheme […]
CESTAT find that, had the appellant not utilized the Cenvat credit of EC & SHEC for payment of output tax/duty in December 2016, the same would have become refundable as on 30/06/2017.
CESTAT Delhi held that Policy Administration Charges is leviable to service tax with effect from 01.05.2011 via amendment to definition under section 65(105)(zx) of the Finance Act, wherein, the words ‘by an insurer including re-insurer carrying on life insurance business’ are substituted.
CESTAT Delhi held that in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(m) and Rule 7 of the CENVAT Rules, before 01.04.2016, the Principal Manufacturer as an Input Service Distributor is facilitated to distribute cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on the input services to its Contract Manufacturing Unit working on job work basis.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty for non-payment of service tax not leviable when the assessee has proved reasonable cause for their bona fide belief of non-payment.
CESTAT Delhi uphold the order of revocation of registration of the authorized courier and forfeiture of security on account of actively violated the provisions of the act and rules by knowingly filing the bills of entry in the name of wrong consignee and also be mis-declaring the nature of the goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not attracted when there is no removal of capital assets/ power plant. Hence Cenvat Credit not leviable.
Appellant has deliberately and intentionally has not provided any such information which was false or incorrect. As such, in my opinion that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 has wrongly been imposed upon him.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere possession of foreign marking on gold without any corroborative evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it is smuggled gold.
Universal Industries Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant, inter alia urges that appellant have paid custom duty on CIF value which includes ocean freight element. Thus, there can be no demand of service tax on the purchase price of goods, even under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. […]
