The issue was whether Revenue appeals with low penalty amounts are maintainable. The Tribunal held that appeals below ₹50 lakh must be dismissed under CBIC litigation policy.
The case addressed whether authorities can change the taxable category during adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice is the foundation and cannot be altered. The demand was set aside as it exceeded the scope of the notice.
The Tribunal held that exemption benefits cannot be claimed under a notification issued after the filing of Bills of Entry. It ruled that the relevant date for duty determination is the date of filing, not clearance.
Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner(Appeals) and ADG (CESTAT Delhi) In Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner (Appeals) and ADG, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi examined the rejection of a service tax refund claim of ₹70,46,602 filed by the appellant for the period June 2015 to […]
CESTAT Delhi held that duty recovery under section 28AAA of the Customs Act justifiable since IT services fraudulently mis-declared as ‘Management Consulting Services’ to obtain benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Accordingly, company appeal is dismissed.
The tribunal held that Section 11B does not permit recovery of already sanctioned refunds. Recovery must follow separate legal provisions. The ruling clarifies limits of refund recovery powers.
The Tribunal held that describing goods as painted steel sheets instead of painted galvanised steel sheets was not mis-declaration. It ruled that incomplete description does not justify confiscation or penalties.
The issue involved taxing services allegedly received from a foreign branch office. The Tribunal held that an entity cannot provide services to itself, making the demand unsustainable.
CESTAT ruled that communication from the supplier and supporting photographs clarified the actual quantity of imported memory modules, negating the charge of mis-declaration.
CESTAT Delhi held that bona fide classification of goods doesn’t result into willful suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of extended period of limitation not justified. Thus, order deserves to be set aside and appeal is allowed.
