Pankaj Ispat Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Forfeited amount for Order Cancellation was not consideration for any service, and therefore not subject to service tax
In Topaz Service Corporation Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi), it was ruled that Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services should only tax pure service contracts, excluding composite contracts with goods.
CESTAT Delhi held that granting “call option” is not an activity of rendering service. Thus, appellant has wrongly been held to have been a service provider while receiving “call option fee”.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty and revocation of customs broker license justified as customs broker abetted the illegal export and also failed to comply with the provisions of CBLR, 2018.
CESTAT Delhi held that substantive benefit of the appellant cannot be taken away merely because the refund claim is filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 instead of Rules 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Delhi held that Electronic Control Units for Electronic Power Steering (EPS-ECU) and its sub-assembly are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8708 94 00.
Hon’ble CESTAT, New Delhi rules that services to UN bodies like UNDP, UNICEF, UN Women, and more are exempt from service tax under Notifications 16/2002-ST and 25/2012-ST.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi ruling allowing cenvat credit for welding electrodes used in cement manufacturing. Full text and expert analysis provided.
CESTAT Delhi held that export of Triethanolamine, which is one of the Specialised Chemicals, Organisms, Machinery, Equipment and Technology (SCOMET) items, without the required authorization is a serious violation. Hence penalty imposed.
CESTAT Delhi held that goods imported are IC-Codecs and are classifiable under Customs Heading 8542 39 90 and hence are exempted from payment of customs duty leviable on goods imported into India.
