CESTAT Delhi’s ruling in National Steel & Agro Industries Limited vs. Principal Commissioner – Analysis of Rule 6(3A) in proportionate credit division. Crucial insights for manufacturers on compliance.
Even when an assessee had suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation could be evoked only when suppression‟ was shown to be willful and with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Commissioner had not recorded any finding that even if assessee had suppressed the fact of having received the amount, it was willful and with an intent evade payment of service.
Explore the case of Volvo Auto India vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi). Learn about customs duty, valuation rules, and the impact of expenses on the assessable value.
Since authorized courier was prohibited from opening and verifying contents of imported consignments and it had not violated Regulation 12(1)(v) and therefore, revocation of the registration and forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 13(1) and imposition of penalty under Regulation 14 could not be sustained.
Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER The appellant M/s Sky Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of Sponge Iron, MS Ingots and Silico Manganese. Their premises were got searched on 7 November 2015 and 8 November 2015 by the team of Preventive […]
CESTAT Delhi sets aside demand based on third-party evidence. Adjudicating Authority warned on compliance. Read the full judgment details.
Baldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) In the present case inspite of opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the show cause notice. Further, from perusal of the order-in-original, I find that the Adjudicating Authority have not recorded satisfaction of service of show cause notice and have proceeded to […]
Rakesh Canteen Contractor Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & ServiceTax (CESTAT Delhi) The brief facts are that the appellant has been awarded canteen services contract from M/s Caparo Engineering India Limited, by way of running and managing their canteen located in their factory premises. The only issue involved in this appeal is under the facts […]
Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Service in question i.e. renting of immovable property is very well covered in ‘means’ as well as ‘includes’ clause of the definition of the input service as given under Rule 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. This Rule allows Cenvat Credit of all such […]
Sundaram Packaging India Pvt.Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Scope of Rule 6 is still with respect to the inputs/inputs services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods along with manufacture of non-exempted goods. Hence, irrespective, exempted goods include non-excisable goods in view of the amendment […]
