Cestat judgments - Page 5

Date of filing of bill of entry is not date of import

Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) From the plain reading of the definition of import it is clear that when the goods enter into territorial water of India that is the stage of completion of import into India and not the date of filling of Bill of Entry, therefore, if the appellant possess […]...

Read More

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

MAN Trucks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

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 […...

Read More

Cenvat Credit not reversible in absence of Physical removal of capital goods

Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Vs CCE&ST (CESTAT Chandigarh)

Cenvat held that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat credit as the capital goods have not been physically removed from the premises where they were initially installed....

Read More

Extended period of limitation could not be invoked by Department if no suppression & misrepresentation of facts

Kent Chemicals Private Ltd Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)

Kent Chemicals Private Ltd Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi) The proven discharge of liability by the service provider, the same is opined to be a sufficient cause for the appellant to have a bonafide impression of him to no more be liable to pay the service tax even under reverse charge mechanism. The allegation as that […]...

Read More

Goods Manufactured for use by other Manufacturers cannot be subjected to Excise U/s. 4A

T.M. Tyres Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad)

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 [...

Read More

Demand for Cost Recovery Charges was non sustainable

Goodearth Maritime Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Since no services were being specially provided by the customs officials to the custodians at a customs port or customs airport, to enable them to collect any fee, from such a custodian thus, High Court not only set-aside the demand of Cost Recovery charges but even held that Regulation 5(2) of Regulation 2009 was illegal....

Read More

Transportation of iron ore from mines site to appellant’s crusher plant not falls under GTA service

East India Minerals Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

Activity of transportation of iron ore lumps from the mines site to the appellant’s crusher plant does not constitute GTA service in terms of Sec.65(105)(zzp) read with Sec.65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994....

Read More

Expenses incurred on sponsorship and endorsement was not includible in transaction value of imports

Commissioner of Customs Vs Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)

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....

Read More

VCES benefit cannot be denied for mere Clerical error

Shivani Textiles Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

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?...

Read More

Broadcasting Agencies not liable to pay service tax on Additional Consideration Received as Surrogates under BAS

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs One Entertainment Network Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Mumbai)

The respondents are, or have been, 'surrogate' providers of `broadcasting' service in India, taxable under section 65(105)(zk) of Finance Act, 1994 since 2001 (and, more especially, with retrospective effect of the amendment incorporated in 2002), in the hands of `broadcasting agency' as defined in section 65(16) of Finance Act, 1994....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,870)
Company Law (6,355)
Custom Duty (7,855)
DGFT (4,268)
Excise Duty (4,380)
Fema / RBI (4,292)
Finance (4,534)
Income Tax (33,904)
SEBI (3,598)
Service Tax (3,578)

Search Posts by Date

August 2020