Exotica Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) if Designated Committee has not issued SVLDRS 3 within 30 days it is a case of deemed discharge under SVLDRS- In that circumstances, SVLDRS-3 form has not been issued to the appellant, therefore, the designated authority was duty bound to […]
Indo Rubber and Plastic Works Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that in absence of any condition precedent, the expenditure by the importer-appellant on advertisement and sales promotion incurred on its own account and not for discharge for any obligation of the seller (foreign exporter) under the terms of the sale, […]
Aureole Atelier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) Section 14 of the Customs Act provides that for the purpose of valuation the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, i.e. to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India […]
Since there was a clear nexus between the appellant -company and all the co-noticees for the alleged violation of the impugned notification which extended the concessional rate of customs duty of 20% ad valorem provided the imported CPO was meant for use in manufacture of soap, therefore, penalty was leviable under section 112B on the main noticee as well as co-noticees for evasion of customs duty.
Quick Heal Antivirus software was held to be ‘goods‘, but whether the transaction would be sale or service, would depend upon the terms of the agreement. Thus, the transaction in the present Appeal resulted in the right to use the software and would amount to ‘deemed sale‘ not liable to service tax
Mails and other electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove undervaluation in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 138C of the Act ibid as held by Anvar P. V and S.N.Agrotech. It is trite law that statements can be relied upon only if they are voluntary and true.
Easy Bill Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) Section 9.1 thought talks about the agreement to be on principle to principle basis as impressed upon by learned DR but perusal of this section reveals the subsequent portion explains that word principle to principle mean that the agreement is not intended to constitute a partnership, joint venture […]
Synergy Baxi Logistics Pvt Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) It is held that if the two services are billed separately then there is no question of including them together for computation of taxable value for payment of service tax. It can be seen from the above reproduced clarification given by the Board that in 2002 […]
Petronet LNG Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The Appellant regasifies Liquefied Natural Gas owned by customers in terms of Agreements which also contain a clause relating to “allowed loss and consumption” under which a certain percentage of LNG made available to the Appellant by the customers is understood to be lost/consumed […]
Max Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that service tax was not payable on surrender charges deducted from the fund value of policy holder on pre-mature withdrawal, as it was not for asset management but a penalty. The Tribunal, considering clarification by CBEC […]
