Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Nagar Parishadservice tax case. Details on charges, legal arguments, and penalties. Analysis of the verdict and its implications.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand of service tax under rule 6(7) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 by adding the amount of fuel surcharge to the air fare for the purpose of determining the basic fare unsustainable as commission was paid on air fare only and not on air fare plus fuel surcharge.
CESTAT Delhi held that Wireless Access Points which works on technology and doesn’t support LTE is exempted from whole of customs duty under serial 13(iv) of the notification dated 01.03.2005.
CESTAT Delhi held that the values declared by the exporter before the Chinese authorities was much higher than the values declared in the Bills of Entry and appellant has failed to produce any cogent document to disprove the allegation of mis-declaration in the export declaration.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT Credit alleging non-receipt of goods based on statements without following procedure prescribed under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that the goods exported under LUT are admittedly imported within six months of the export then there is no liability to pay tax on re-import.
CESTAT Delhi held that Wireless Access Point is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90 and accordingly is entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty under serial no. 13 of notification dated 01.03.2005 as amended by notification dated 11.07.2014.
Shri Surya Prakash Gaur Vs Commissioner, Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)- Service of order by Speed Post cannot be deemed to be served in absence of proof of delivery – Section 37C of Central Excise Act-1944
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act without elements of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of Act or Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of tax is untenable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere acceptance of the reassessed value and payment thereof will not be sufficient to confirm the allegations of undervaluation. Burden on the department to prove mis-declaration and undervaluation not discharged. Hence, differential duty demand set aside.
