Commissioner of Customs Vs Oriental Trimex Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) If the confiscated goods allowed to redeemed on a redemption fine then the sale proceeds will be paid only after deduction of such fine In the given case the importer appellant is engaged in the business of import of marble from various countries into India and […]
Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to consider whether it should be necessary to cause a vigilance enquiry on the system failure to determine how the consignments were cleared when there were so many mis-declaration in description as well as classification of the imported Point of Sale Devices (POS) and Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS) and evasion of customs duty.
Sponsorship and endorsement expenses paid by Adidas India to various athletes and players in India were not includable in the assessable value of the goods imported by Adidas India by invoking rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007.
MGF Event Management Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) We cannot accept the appellant‘s plea that huge parking space area was given to the appellant without any agreement with respect to financial consideration or without an agreement with respect to contingent liabilities with respect to theft, injuries, fire or other liabilities. It is difficult to believe that […]
Whether department is correct in charging service tax on various services provided to film distributors by assessee without charging any consideration.
Lanco solar Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise, Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Delhi CESTAT held that the ab initio exemption provided under the SEZ provisions, having overriding effect on the service tax provision. Under such position of law, a notification under service tax cannot restrict or provide a time limit for grant of refund […]
MAN Trucks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) In a case where the assessee had exported goods to sister concern who in turn had sold them to buyers there, with the foreign importer being responsible for providing after sales services, CESTAT Delhi has held that the discount given in consideration for non-provision of warranty […]
Adjudicating Authority was right in in imposing a penalty under the provision of Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 as both the appellants were fully aware that M/s B Pvt. Ltd. was importing complete Segway electrically operated product in CKD condition by mis-declaring the same as CKD parts of components such as Power unit, transmission kit, etc.
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, […]
