In order to attract Section 78, it is necessary that tax must have remained unpaid for the reasons of fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, etc, with an intention to evade payment of tax.
M/s Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The short issue, therefore, arising for our consideration is whether the reimbursement of salary paid to the ‘secondee’, to the parent company, Nektar USA amounted consideration for provision of manpower recruitment and supply agency services, within the meaning […]
The issue under consideration is whether the export proceeds realised even before the invoices were issued are against exported services since FIRCs are also not show the invoice numbers?
The issue under consideration is whether service tax will be levied on promoters/builders/developers prior to 01.06.2010 in respect of the construction of the residential complex?
The issue under consideration is whether the contention if the appellant is correct that they are not liable to pay service tax on brokerage received from overseas reinsurance on the ground that the service falls under the category of export of service?
Transaction value i.e. FOB price cannot be treated as cum duty price under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of calculation of export duty.
Cubex Tubings Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad) The issue in dispute is whether the appellant assessee is entitled to CENVAT Credit on the disputed eight invoices or otherwise. It is the case of the Revenue that no material was received by the appellant against these invoices […]
T.M. Tyres Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Butyl rubber inner tubes and such product by itself is separately identifiable and is a distinct Marketable product. It cannot be said that the product manufactured by the appellant […]
ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) In view of the above, we find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amount of cenvat credit which needs to be disallowed, the interest thereon and the appropriate penalty as follows: (i) while computing the […]
The short point to be decided is whether the consignment MFD copiers imported prior to 05.06.2012 when the restriction was imposed upon them are liable to confiscation under section 111(d) for violation of Foreign Trade Policy.
