CESTAT Delhi held that profit on ocean freight charges cannot be termed as consideration for service and hence service tax is not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that authority is not permitted to retain the excess amount paid by the appellant because of an error in EDI system. Authority is duty bound to refund such amount.
Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error while holding that Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be invoked to sanction the refund of unutilized Cenvat credit lying with the appellant much prior to April, 2017 that too in cash as per Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017.
Commissioner Central Excise & Central GST Vs Navdeep Traders (CESTAT Delhi) Issue- whether the activity of the respondent is a works contract service and thus the value of the blasting material/explosives is to be excluded from the amount received by the assessee for blasting at customers site for excavation of sand stone. The respondent – […]
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of transaction value and determining the value based on the contemporaneous value available in National Import Database (NIDB) correct as quantity of goods is much larger than what was declared; buyer and seller are related parties and grade of guar gum is mis-declared.
IOCL was not entitled for the conversion of DEEC shipping bills to drawback shipping bills since it was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the competent authority and for the reason for non-filing of the requisite documents in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act as well as the Circular.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurant in relation to letting out of halls or rooms for organizing any official, social or business function under ‘mandap keeper’ service.
S.K. Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT observed that Though ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed only one aspect of rejecting the claims i.e. time bar aspect. But it is observed that the orders of Original Authorities have been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) resulting into merger of these orders. The perusal of Orders-in-Original is […]
The necessary interested parties had not been impleaded as respondents in these four appeals. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the appellants time was granted to move appropriate applications for impleading the remaining interested parties as respondents in the four appeals.
