Rayban Sun Optics India Pvt . Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Apparently and admittedly, the appellant filed the refund claim on 19.02.2018. The refund was claimed on an amount as was deposited by him during investigation and which was ordered to be appropriated vide Order-in-Original dated 21.10.2004. No doubt the […]
Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Central GST (CESTAT Delhi) Coming to the plea of issue being barred by time, I hold that no doubt the service tax was deposited by the appellant on 4th October, 2016 and 24 October, 2016 and the refund claim has been filed on 7th May, 2018 […]
Penalty on confiscated Gold Jewellery was not liable to be imposed as the transit passenger was not required to pass through customs barrier or check post and the source of gold jewellery he was wearing was cogently explained, which had not been found to be untrue.
Mammon Concast Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly the melting scrap purchased by the appellant on high sea sale, is their input for manufacture of M.S. I further find that Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by […]
Home guards department was an agency of state government and therefore, could not be considered as ‘person’ engaged in the business of running security services. Therefore, there could be no levy of service tax on security services provided by the Home Guards Department as it was a part of its statutory function.
Explore the case of Surya Alumex vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi). Understand the implications of Rule 4(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on Cenvat credit and depreciation claims.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi decision in Shahid Ali vs. Principal Commissioner, focusing on allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration in ‘Food Supplements’ imports. Learn why the adjudicating authority’s penalty imposition on the proprietorship firm and its proprietor was deemed double jeopardy.
Since assessee could not discharge their responsibility of proving non-smuggled nature of the seized foreign marked gold as per section 123 of Customs Act thus, the confiscation of the gold bars, gold coins and small pieces of gold under section 111(d) and section 111(i) was correct.
CESTAT Delhi’s ruling in National Steel & Agro Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner – Analysis of Rule 6(3A) in proportionate credit division. Crucial insights for manufacturers on compliance.
Even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be evoked only when suppression‟ was shown to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner had not recorded any finding that even if assessee had suppressed the fact of having received the amount, it was willful and with an intent evade payment of service.
