Service Tax : CESTAT rules that affiliation fees collected by universities are statutory functions, not taxable services. Service tax demand and...
CA, CS, CMA : A summary of key updates for Income Tax, GST, RBI, and legal matters issued from April 7-13, 2025, including exemptions, tax forms...
Service Tax : Understand the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Vishal Tansukhbhai Gohel vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. No service tax on freig...
Service Tax : CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Shakti Enterprise vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST clarifies that CHA's reimbursable expenses are...
Custom Duty : CESTAT, Allahabad penalizes Commissioner for delaying Tribunal order implementation. Rs. 2,00,000 penalty imposed, and contempt pr...
CA, CS, CMA : CESTAT e-Filing Software User Manual explains about New User Registration, User Home Page Navigation, Filing, (Petition/Appeal) ...
Goods and Services Tax : This is the fourth year since the introduction of GST in July, 2017. Despite a sizeable liquidation of appeals under the Sabka Vis...
Excise Duty : The Union Cabinet today gave its approval for setting up six additional Benches of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate T...
Service Tax : The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has directed JetLite (formerly Sahara Airlines Ltd) to pay Rs 100 crore (Rs 1...
Excise Duty : RECENTLY the President of India was pleased to discharge Hon'ble member of the CESTAT Mr. PK Das, just a day before he was to comp...
Custom Duty : CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices...
Service Tax : The Tribunal examined a service tax demand raised on the basis of DGARM data and financial statements. It held that reliance solel...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that food testing kits were wrongly described as being for “diagnostic use only” to claim a customs exemptio...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chennai held that villas constructed on separate plots under individual agreements and approvals do not constitute a reside...
Service Tax : The Tribunal held that interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act is mandatory when service tax is paid after the due date. Admi...
Custom Duty : Read Notification No. 02/2023 from CESTAT, New Delhi, introducing virtual hearings. Learn about the procedure, technical requireme...
Goods and Services Tax : Applications are being invited for 2 anticipated vacancies of Member (Technical) and 4 anticipated vacancies of Member (Judicial) ...
CA, CS, CMA : Representations have been received from the Bar Associations requesting for physical hearing of appeals. As there is improvement i...
Custom Duty : F No. 01(05)/Circular/CESTAT/2021 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-11006...
Goods and Services Tax : Representations have been received from the Bar Associations at Mumbai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Hyderabad Benches of ...
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where the appellant merely acted as a broker without handling goods. Absence of possession or direct involvement made Rule 26 inapplicable.
The issue involved service tax demand on GTO services using Section 73. The Tribunal held that recipients governed by Section 71A cannot be proceeded against under Section 73. The demand was quashed due to procedural invalidity of the notice.
The Tribunal held that goods falling under the excluded category of the notification are not eligible for exemption. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was contrary to the express exclusion provision.
The authority held that penalty under Section 114AA cannot be imposed without proof of knowledge or intent. It ruled that absence of evidence linking the courier to Pakistan-origin goods warranted deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal held that input service credit is fully admissible before 01.04.2011 but restricted thereafter for construction-related services. It clarified eligibility based on amended exclusion provisions.
The case examined whether procedural violations in transfers between EOUs justify duty demands. The Tribunal held that such lapses alone are insufficient and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that excess service tax paid inadvertently does not qualify as tax under law. As a result, limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable and refund was allowed with interest.
Clandestine removal could not be sustained on mere assumptions or third-party statements without corroborative evidence and statutory compliance under Section 9D.
The Tribunal held that tax demand cannot be confirmed under a category not proposed in the show cause notice. It ruled that such reclassification violates settled legal principles and renders the demand invalid.
The tribunal examined whether imported rubber is liable to additional duty equivalent to cess. It upheld the levy by following earlier decisions and the appellant’s own case. The key takeaway is that consistent precedents were applied to sustain the demand.
