CESTAT Mumbai held that as revenue has not demanded any service tax on output service by denying the export status, likewise revenue cannot deny refund by treating the services provided not to be export of service.
CESTAT Mumbai held that claim of extra payment of tax without any documentary evidence (except arithmetical calculation) is not adjustable and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that offence of money-laundering committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature.
Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 ibid deals with imposition of mandatory penalty in certain cases. As per the Customs Act it is the importer who is to file the bill of entry to the proper officer u/s. 46 ibid while importing the goods and the assessment has to be made on that bill of entry and on such assessment, the duty is levied
The department had challenged the order passed by Tribunal, Mumbai wherein, the tribunal, inter alia, held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and the same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of the Central Excise Tariff.
As per Rule 66E(b), Service Tax Rules, 1994 in construction service, service tax is required to be paid on amount received from buyers towards booking of flat before the issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority and the booking can be cancelled by the buyer any time before taking possession of the flat.
CESTAT Mumbai held that once the adjudication has taken place under section 11B of the Central Excise Act there cannot be recovery on claim of ‘erroneous refund’ under section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
HC Held that, providing services of ‘Goods Transport Agency’ (GTA) does not fall within the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent’, provided to several recipients who were liable to discharge tax dues on freight under ‘RCM after availing permissible abatement.
Merely because CA certificate is not as per liking of authorities, it cannot be brushed aside as no specific format of certificate has been prescribed by statute.
Matter for denying the lower rate of duty prescribed for heading no. 3105 corresponding to ‘other fertilisers’ in Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was remanded back to the original authority for subjecting the statement of the employee, considered to be of particular relevance in determining the outcome of the impugned order, to the prescriptive mandate of section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944.
