Evershine Customs (C & F) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs a) The penalty under section 112 on the Customs Broker is set aside because even if the allegation that the CB has not fulfilled his obligations under CBLR 2013 is proven, no penalty can be imposed on this ground under section 112 of the […]
Since it was not possible to sustain the CVD levied for ‘other program’ and if the other program was excluded from the subsidy margin determination, assessee would fall below the de minimis level. The imposition of 2.47% CVD on assessee at serial no. 8 of the notification dated January 8, 2020 was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Aestrik Techno-Signs Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The goods were imported declaring a certain value which was doubted by the officers and so the goods were opened and examined. After opening and examining and comparing the goods with the value of corresponding goods in contemporaneous imports the officer founds that the goods were […]
J. K. Cement Works Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTA Delhi) Conclusion: Adjudicating Authority was directed to grant interest from the date of deposit till the date of grant of a refund at the rate of 12% per annum. Such interest on refund should be granted within a period of 60 […]
Transpeed Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Regulation 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 requires the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of Importer/Exporter Code Number, Service Tax Identification Number, identity card of the client and functioning of the client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data […]
he appellants were not maintaining separate records of receipt, consumption of inventory of inputs and input services in terms of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore, they opted to pay CENVAT Credit as determined under Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Learned Counsel pointed out that there are 28 contracts in respect of which demand has been made. Learned Counsel stated that they have paid the service tax in respect of Serial Number 14 and 20 of the said list and these are not disputed. Learned Counsel pointed out that they are entitled to get the benefit of the mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012. He pointed out that Serial Number 12(d), Serial Number 13(a) and Serial Number 14(a) of the said notification cover all the contracts that they have undertaken as these contracts are in respect of the canals, roads and railways etc. He pointed out that the availability of exemption under Serial Number 13(a) and 14(a) could not be taken up before Commissioner due to lack of proper representation by the Advocate. He pointed out that they are entitled to these benefits but the Commissioner‟s order only examine the benefits with respect to Serial Number 12(d) of the said notification. He pointed out that in order to get a proper redressel, the matter needs to be sent back to Commissioner for fresh adjudication for examining the relief under all the related entries of the mega Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012.
Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under the category of ‘works contract’ for the period post June 1, 2007 even if the levy of service tax was not exempted under Notifications, since, the show cause notice that demand it service tax under the three categories namely (i) commercial or industrial construction, (ii) construction of complex and (iii) management, maintenance or repair.
The Application for refund of service tax has to be made within the period stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 102 of the Finance Act.
The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the value of items supplied free of cost by service recipient to the appellant have to be included in the value of mining services provided by the appellant.
