CESTAT Mumbai held that the provisions of service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, set aside tax recovery from M/s Singapore Airlines as deemed provider of online information data base access or retrieval service.
CESTAT Mumbai held that with the recovery of duty, imports stand regularized and hence section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 becomes inapplicable. Accordingly, confiscation and penalty set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that CENVAT Credit is duly available against debit notes that contains substantially the same information as prescribed in rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
CESTAT Mumbai held that as the appellant has duly reversed the CENVAT Credit on inputs used in respect of finished goods contained in the broken bottles of beverages, the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the same.
CESTAT Mumbai held that clear intention of export under ‘advance authorization scheme’ is evident and hence mere title of the shipping bills is to be alter. Application for alteration of the same cannot be rejected.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the goods are to be assessed in the form they are produced for assessment. Accordingly, goods cleared as fruit pulp cannot be assessed and duty cannot be demanded on the basis of sale price of fruit juice.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the process of slitting jumbo rolls does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
CESTAT Mumbai held that CENVAT credit is available against invoices and also against debit notes which contains all the substantial information as prescribed in rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
In a significant case of Star India, the CESTAT had held that the impugned order had failed to identify the taxable service that the erstwhile foreign entities had obtained from the foreign service provider without which the test of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 was not applied.
Meghna Clearing and Forwarding P. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) In the present case the concern clerk admitted his mistake and sought for a lenient view in the matter. As per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act facts admitted by the parties or their agents are not required to be proved in […]
