Appointment of the custodian was mainly for the purpose of getting the customs formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for home consumption or for depositing in a warehouse was passed by the proper officer. Refund application was rightly rejected as neither duty exemption under Section 13 of Customs Act nor the remission of duty under Section 23 of Customs Act was available to assessee.
Assessee was able to correlate the invoices with the undertakings and satisfied the substantial conditions set out in the Exemption Notifications. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked in absence of suppression or collusion with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the order was set-aside by which the demand of service tax had been confirmed with interest and penalty.
CESTAT quashed the demand for service tax on foreign remittance as assessee had paid the service tax on a higher value than proposed by the Department and also the demand had been dropped for the year 2010-2011, there was no reason why it should not be dropped for the year 2009-2010.
Anand Automotive challenges service tax demand. Delhi CESTAT order analysis. Legal insights by Anand Bhattacharya. Ruling on BSS category.
Flexi Caps And Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST (CESTAT Delhi) The apparent fact on record is that the appellant has paid the entire CVD/SAD upon the goods imported by the appellant, as inputs, for manufacturing its final product. No doubt, initially the import was made duty free but for the reason that the appellant […]
In present facts of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal gave directions to dispose of the refund applications within 3 months after the filing of new refund application on the basis of observations made on procedure of refund applications.
Tribunal opined that the alleged non-payment cannot be called as willful or intentional act of the appellant to evade the payment of duty. Lastly, it was adjudged that it is the burden of the Revenue to prove whether the Assessee has intended to conduct evasion.
Since the Custom Broker was liable to verify genuineness of importer-exporter code, IEC number, identity of client to prevent facilitation of export prohibited goods, therefore, custom broker was liable for penalty in case of breach of KYC norms and mandatory obligations under Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
Bharat Mines & Minerals Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Customs & Central (CESTAT Delhi) I find that the invoices in question were issued by the Chartered Accountant- Anuj Maheshwari and Company, copy of which is available in the appeal record. The invoices reads as ‘professional consultancy for export against export consignment as per […]
Minda D-Ten Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi) The Bluetooth module receives radio frequency analog signals from other devices (like mobile phone), converts the radio frequency analog signals into digital signals and thereafter transmits the signals back to the Bluetooth module of mobile phone (in radio frequency signal form) or to the […]
