Lutron GL Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the percentage of enhancement to the transaction value ordered by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is justified in law? In the present case, the appellant M/s Lutron GL Sales & Services Pvt. Limited imports lighting control […]
The definition of ‘construction of complex’ and a ‘residential complex’ continued to remain the same after 1 July, 2012 and, therefore, service tax liability could not have been fastened even after 1 July, 2012 under ‘construction of complex’.
Spring Dells Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee was entitled to the area-based exemption for the reason that it was admittedly the successor of the previous unit entitled to the exemption and all the units/sheds were located in one private industrial complex which could be said to be adjacent […]
Service tax can be demanded under 65(105)(zzzh) only if the building concerned has more than 12 residential units in the building and such levy will not apply in cases where in one compound has many buildings, each having not more than 12 residential units.
The issue in this appeal is whether the benefit of VCES-Voluntary Compliance encouragement Scheme, 2013 have been rightly denied to the appellant on the basis of clerical error in filing the declaration?
Commissioner of Customs Vs Oriental Trimex Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi) If the confiscated goods allowed to redeemed on a redemption fine then the sale proceeds will be paid only after deduction of such fine In the given case the importer appellant is engaged in the business of import of marble from various countries into India and […]
Chief Commissioner of Customs was directed to consider whether it should be necessary to cause a vigilance enquiry on the system failure to determine how the consignments were cleared when there were so many mis-declaration in description as well as classification of the imported Point of Sale Devices (POS) and Mobile Point of Sale Devices (MPOS) and evasion of customs duty.
Sponsorship and endorsement expenses paid by Adidas India to various athletes and players in India were not includable in the assessable value of the goods imported by Adidas India by invoking rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007.
MGF Event Management Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) We cannot accept the appellant‘s plea that huge parking space area was given to the appellant without any agreement with respect to financial consideration or without an agreement with respect to contingent liabilities with respect to theft, injuries, fire or other liabilities. It is difficult to believe that […]
Whether department is correct in charging service tax on various services provided to film distributors by assessee without charging any consideration.
