CESTAT Delhi held that demand solely on the basis of the statement of the person who was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant is unjustified.
The Hon’ble CESTAT revoking the Customs Brokers licences of the appellants forfeiting their security deposits and further imposing penalty on the appellants cannot be sustained as Appellants have provided their best efforts to establish the genuinety of exporters and they have relied upon the documents which have been issued by Government to the exporters.
CESTAT Delhi held that amount deposited prior to adjudication but not held as payable under SVLDR Scheme is liable to be refunded back to the appellant.
Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that the Commissioner could not have ordered for cost recovery charges under the provisions of regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of Customs Area Regulations 2009. Accordingly, penalty imposed under regulation 12(8) also not sustainable. Facts- The appellant is a State Government […]
CESTAT ruled that CBEC does not have the power to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.
Indian Additives Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The definition of “capital goods” after 01.04.2016 does not exclude ‘any equipment or appliance used in an office’. For this reason, I hold that the credit availed by the appellant on the said computer server after 01.04.2016 would be eligible. It has also […]
M J Gold Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly, the Customs Authority while verifying the origin of goods had issued a questionnaire and denied the benefit on the ground that the complete questionnaire was not answered by the appellant creating a doubt about the Country of origin Certificate. The perusal […]
CESTAT Delhi held that Penalty under section 114AA is imposable only if knowingly or intentionally a false declaration, statement or document is made, signed or used. As there are no evidences that appellant knew of the fraud/ forged licences, penalty u/s 114AA cannot be sustained.
Nai Dunia Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant urges that there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant have shared the electricity received from MPEB with Web Dunia, PPPL and others on proportionate (reimbursement) basis. Admittedly, the appellant has not generated electricity. […]
CESTAT Delhi held that sprinklers are not included in the description of goods contained at Serial No. 325 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 chargeable to 18%, whereas, serial No. 195B of the notification does not restrict the sprinklers to any category and hence benefit of lower IGST rate of 12% available to fire sprinklers.
