G & G Ispat (P) Limited Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant admittedly has paid the service tax chargeable from them under reverse charge mechanism, on 31.10.2015, which was reflected in the return filed for the period 2014-15, which was filed on 21.01.2016. Further, appellant has also informed this fact of tax having been deposited vide […]
Leather Sellers Vs Commissioner of Customs And Excise, Patparganj (CESTAT Delhi) The brief facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer-exporter of leather goods. They had re-imported a consignment of goods, which were earlier exported for the purpose of repair etc. and thereafter, reexport. For such re-import, the appellant had filed Bill of Entry dated […]
Sanjeev Jindal Vs Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) The finding recorded in the order is that exemption under a notification that granted area based exemption was wrongly obtained by the Company and its Directors. It is for this reason that apart from denying the exemption claimed by the Company, penalty was also imposed […]
Appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of under Sl. No. 1335 of Notification No. 46/2011-CUS because the exemption is available unconditionally under the notification to all goods falling under 851190 imported from ASEAN countries
Held that importer already accepted the enhanced value determined by the assessing officer, setting aside the said order on casual observation by the Commissioner (Appeals) is unsustainable in law
Mohit Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The impugned consignment was detained and was proposed to be confiscated for want of the proper BIS certificate. This being a Bureau of India Standards certificate is issued by the respective Ministry in the favour of the manufacturer who further issues same to its buyers. Since the […]
J. K. Cement Works Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed Cenvat credit totalling Rs. 2,50,195/-, which was mainly on account of iron and steel structure, tower material, steel casting. Appellant inter alia urges that admittedly these items have been used by the appellant in the factory of production. These items […]
The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Once the verification is done requirement of regulation 10(n) is satisfied.
Appellant had reasonably explained the licit possession of the two gold bars, as received by way of succession under the will of his father however due to unexplained source of licit acquisition by father of appellant, penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) and penalty under Section 114AA was set aside.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Shiv Naresh Sports Pvt. Ltd. service tax dispute. Analysis of sports facility services, commercial construction, and implications. Full text included.
