Cargo Specialist Inc. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT finds that it has been recorded in the final order that the appellant – Custom Broker inspite of having already handled eight export consignment in the past, till the inspection of the 9th consignment, has never met the exporter or the owner of M/s Fashion […]
The goods declared as scrap have been sold by the appellant to companies engaged in scrap management which have a certificate issued to them by the Principal Environment Commissioner, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, for procurement and recycling of scrap under the Hazardous Waste Management Rules. Further, the invoices through which these goods were sold to these companies also describe the good as scrap only.
Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Principal Additional Director General, DRI had the jurisdiction to issue the notice. This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of […]
Insistence on the part of appellant to deliberately classify their services under a different head shows their intention of escaping their liability for the previous period which amount to noncompliance with statutory obligations.
Held that, service tax will not be levied on the donations received by a trust from its members and on freight charges paid towards the activity of advancement of yoga. Further held that, activities can’t be covered under Goods and Transport Agency Service where consignment notes have not been issued.
CESTAT find that service tax was not leviable on the services provided by the appellants, which was paid by mistake by the appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund. Limitation u/s 11B will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit.
Ozone Plant Design Service Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case, upon filing of the refund claims, only a deficiency memo was issued to the appellant requiring the appellant to appear on a particular date and produce the required documents indicated in the memo to substantiate the claim. What […]
CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the appeal filed for refund claim by the assessee. Held that, the refund claim of input services under GST cannot be denied solely on technical reasons.
A.V. Agro Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) It is held that vide the impugned application, the appellant is trying to bring a new case despite that his grievances have been settled not once but on several other occasions where he himself has admitted him to have same facts as […]
Harjas Associates Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) It is not the case of the department that the appellant though has collected the service tax but not paid the same to the government. The demand confirmed in the impugned order pertains to GTA services provided by the appellant […]
