IDP Education India Private Limited Vs Additional Director General of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) It is undisputed that the appellant has an agreement only with IDP Australia. The appellant recruits or facilitates students in India, but does not get any remuneration from Australian universities. For the students who are recruited or admitted by the university […]
Ferryman Trading Company Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi) Absolute discretion of Customs Authority either to order absolute confiscation or impose fine in lieu of confiscation CESTAT Delhi held that the confiscating officer under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 has the absolute discretion to either impose fine in lieu of confiscation or […]
Kusum Healthcare Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (ITAT Delhi) Facts- M/s Kusum Healthcare has preferred an appeal challenging OIO demanding tax on the finding that remittances made to their branches and offices abroad is ‘consideration’ for ‘taxable service’ procured from outside the taxable territory. Conclusion- The Tribunal in the case […]
Principal Commissioner, Customs Vs Dish TV India Limited (CESTAT Delhi) At the outset learned Counsel representing the appellant importer, Shri Dalmia and Shri Tagra, submitted that the SCN was issued by DRI in these matters under section 28(4) of the Customs Act demanding differential duty in respect of the goods which were assessed and thereafter […]
Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Central Excise and CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of auto parts which the appellant sells to many buyers. The appellant had entered into a contract with Honda India for supply of auto parts used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. For the […]
It was held that the Appellant will be entitled to exemption as services rendered to the Government Companies, i.e., RRVPNL in the present case, post 30.06.2012, being of non-commercial nature
Raymond Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Whether show cause notice dated 28.09.2001 has been validly issued, for raising demand of service tax on GTO/GTA services received by the appellant for the disputed period, in terms of the prevailing Section 73 under reverse charge, and Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in […]
I hold that e-rickshaw kits in CKD condition imported in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be treated as a complete vehicle only for the purpose of customs tariff, and not for interpretation of the Import Export Policy /Foreign Trade Policy, or for the purpose of the CMV Act and the Rules thereunder.
The provisions of the Customs Act and that of the HCCR do not absolve the custodian of the responsibilities as mentioned in these Regulations to be observed by the Custodians itself, the CESTAT do not find any infirmity with the order under challenge where simultaneously penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant as well.
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.
