It was held that the Appellant will be entitled to exemption as services rendered to the Government Companies, i.e., RRVPNL in the present case, post 30.06.2012, being of non-commercial nature
Raymond Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Whether show cause notice dated 28.09.2001 has been validly issued, for raising demand of service tax on GTO/GTA services received by the appellant for the disputed period, in terms of the prevailing Section 73 under reverse charge, and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in […]
I hold that e-rickshaw kits in CKD condition imported in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be treated as a complete vehicle only for the purpose of customs tariff, and not for interpretation of the Import Export Policy /Foreign Trade Policy, or for the purpose of the CMV Act and the Rules thereunder.
The provisions of the Customs Act and that of the HCCR do not absolve the custodian of the responsibilities as mentioned in these Regulations to be observed by the Custodians itself, the CESTAT do not find any infirmity with the order under challenge where simultaneously penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant as well.
Appointment of the custodian was mainly for the purpose of getting the customs formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for home consumption or for depositing in a warehouse was passed by the proper officer. Refund application was rightly rejected as neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act was available to assessee.
Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of suppression or collusion with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
Anand Automotive challenges service tax demand. Delhi CESTAT order analysis. Legal insights by Anand Bhattacharya. Ruling on BSS category.
Flexi Caps And Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) The apparent fact on record is that the appellant has paid the entire CVD/SAD upon the goods imported by the appellant, as inputs, for manufacturing its final product. No doubt, initially the import was made duty free but for the reason that the appellant […]
In present facts of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal gave directions to dispose of the refund applications within 3 months after the filing of new refund application on the basis of observations made on procedure of refund applications.
