Follow Us:

CESTAT Delhi

Time limit not applicable for Service Tax refund to SEZ

February 26, 2020 3057 Views 0 comment Print

Lanco solar Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise, Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Delhi CESTAT  held that the ab initio exemption provided under the SEZ provisions, having overriding effect on the service tax provision. Under such position of law, a notification under service tax cannot restrict or provide a time limit for grant of refund […]

Discount given for non-provision of certain service to foreign buyer not liable under BAS

February 24, 2020 885 Views 0 comment Print

MAN Trucks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) In a case where the assessee had exported goods to sister concern who in turn had sold them to buyers there, with the foreign importer being responsible for providing after sales services, CESTAT Delhi has held that the discount given in consideration for non-provision of warranty […]

Penalty justified for evading customs duty by wrongly availing benefits

February 24, 2020 4086 Views 0 comment Print

Adjudicating Authority was right in in imposing a penalty under the provision of Section 114A and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 as  both the appellants were fully aware that M/s B Pvt. Ltd. was importing complete Segway electrically operated product in CKD condition by mis-declaring the same as CKD parts of components such as Power unit, transmission kit, etc.

If Designated Committee not issues SVLDRS 3 within 30 days it is a case of deemed discharge

February 17, 2020 1824 Views 0 comment Print

Exotica Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, Goods and Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) if Designated Committee has not issued SVLDRS 3 within 30 days it is a case of deemed discharge under SVLDRS- In that circumstances, SVLDRS-3 form has not been issued to the appellant, therefore, the designated authority was duty bound to […]

Valuation – Advertisement & sales promotion expenses incurred by importer on own account, not includible

February 13, 2020 1305 Views 0 comment Print

Indo Rubber and Plastic Works Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi has held that in absence of any condition precedent, the expenditure by the importer-appellant on advertisement and sales promotion incurred on its own account and not for discharge for any obligation of the seller (foreign exporter) under the terms of the sale, […]

Transaction Value to be accepted if there was reason to doubt truth or accuracy of such value

February 11, 2020 1284 Views 0 comment Print

Aureole Atelier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) Section 14 of the Customs Act provides that for the purpose of valuation the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, i.e. to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India […]

Co-noticees also liable for section 112B penalty with main noticee for custom duty evasion

January 15, 2020 1749 Views 0 comment Print

Since there was a clear nexus between the appellant -company and all the co-noticees for the alleged violation of the impugned notification which extended the concessional rate of customs duty of 20% ad valorem provided the imported CPO was meant for use in manufacture of soap, therefore, penalty was leviable under section 112B on the main noticee as well as co-noticees for evasion of customs duty.

Quick Heal Antivirus Software was goods not liable to service tax: CESTAT

January 9, 2020 4614 Views 0 comment Print

Quick Heal Antivirus software was held to be ‘goods‘, but whether the transaction would be sale or service, would depend upon the terms of the agreement. Thus, the transaction in the present Appeal resulted in the right to use the software and would amount to ‘deemed sale‘ not liable to service tax

Email / quotations cannot be the basis for re-determining value of goods

January 9, 2020 1326 Views 0 comment Print

Mails and other electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove undervaluation in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 138C of the Act ibid as held by Anvar P. V  and S.N.Agrotech. It is trite law that statements can be relied upon only if they are voluntary and true.

Service cannot be termed as Franchise Service for mere user of word ‘Principle to Principle’ in agreement,

January 7, 2020 834 Views 0 comment Print

Easy Bill Ltd. Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi) Section 9.1 thought talks about the agreement to be on principle to principle basis as impressed upon by learned DR but perusal of this section reveals the subsequent portion explains that word principle to principle mean that the agreement is not intended to constitute a partnership, joint venture […]

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031