CESTAT Delhi held that tower/ tower material and pre-fabricated buildings/ shelters are covered within the definition of ‘capital goods’ and hence eligible for Cenvat Credit
Held that the goods have been confiscated and no redemption was allowed, the duty liability cannot pass on to anyone but to the Government of India in whom the property vests.
Held that Melamina is a Syantan and accordingly benefit of duty free import under DFIA licence under Notification No. 98/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 available
Held that the undertaking to use the aircraft for non-scheduled (passenger) service can be said to have been violated only when the DGCA finds that the use of the aircraft is not in accordance with the permit granted and only in that event the Customs authority can demand duty in terms of undertaking
Held that in case of Trademark License Agreement an exclusive license to use the trademark is granted and hence the same is covered within the phrase transfer of right to use the goods and hence not leviable to service tax.
Satya Power & Ispat Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The issue is whether the appellant is liable to pay central excise duty on removal of iron ore fines/iron ore concentrates? Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that in the de-novo proceedings, the lower authority without appreciating the submissions made […]
Where the Central Government formed a prima facie opinion that the final findings of the designated authority recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty were not required to be accepted then tentative reasons had to be recorded and conveyed to the domestic industry so as to give an opportunity to the domestic industry to submit a representation by following the principles of natural justice.
Held that colour data projectors are classified under CTI 8528 61 00 and accordingly unconditional exemption from payment of BCD available under serial no. 17 of exemption notification dated 01.03.2005.
Imported WAP was entitled to an exemption from the whole of the customs duties under the ITA as it worked on technology and did not support the LTE standard.
Held that service provider is entitled for refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when output service is exported. The said rule 5 doesn’t stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund.
