Allegation of undue export benefit relying heavily on the statement which was not supported by any corroborative evidence cannot be sustained.
CESTAT held that there is no case of short payment of service tax as the appellant has paid the service tax in the next financial year.
CESTAT held that debit of amount of refund claim in cenvat credit account suo moto before adjudication, is sufficient compliance of Condition No. 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE
No service tax on composite works contract services of supply of goods/deemed supply of goods & services under any head before 1.6.2007
CESTAT find that there is no deliberate non-compliance and further the situation is wholly revenue neutral. Thus, there is no incentive for the appellant to evade payment of service tax under the RCM. Accordingly, CESTAT allow this appeal and set aside the penalty under Section 78.
CESTAT held that there shall be consonance between allegation levelled by Revenue and the records presented against the taxpayer. Further held that the allegation cannot be justified in absence of any admission from the assessee against the alleged clandestine transaction. Moreover, third party records and statement by Director of the Company cannot be used against the assessee for non-joinder of the parties.
Regulation 13 of CBLR, 2013 lays down that change of constitution of a Customs Broker needs to be communicated within 60 days from the date of such change for grant of license under Regulation 7.
Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notices after passing of final order by Tribunal, with respect to subject matter of refund, was wholly against provisions of law
Whether wavering of pre-deposit on the grounds of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 existing prior to August 06, 2014 is feasible?
Held that freight incurred from the place of removal to the buyer’s premises is not includible in the assessable value and accordingly excise is not payable on the same.
