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.
Held that revenue needs to establish that the goods lying or found in the shop/ godwon of the assessee are not duty paid.
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Central Goods And Service Tax Vs Shree Cement Ltd (CESTAT Delhi) Held that cenvat credit of 2% CVD paid under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17/03/2012 is eligible to the appellant. Facts- The issue involved in these Appeals is whether Cenvat credit of 2% CVD paid on import of steam […]
Held that deliberate concealment relating to mis-declaration of the goods and overvaluing with the intention to avail higher duty drawback is untenable
Held that the allegation of clandestine production and removal has to be established against any person by independent and tangible evidence. No demand exists in absence of such evidence.
