Dive into the case of Jyote Motors Bengal Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, where the Calcutta High Court adjudicates on the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on the Rajesh Mangal vs C.C.E. & S.T. case, affirming the validity of an excise duty demand but reducing the penalty under Rule 26. Read about the implications and insights from this ruling.
Calcutta High Court, in the case of Liakhat Ali Mallick v. State of West Bengal, set aside the order requiring the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 20% of the interest liability. Gain insights into the ruling and its implications for GST cases.
Get insights into the recent CESTAT decision on service tax refund for services consumed outside India. Explore the case of M/s. Aegis Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I, where the tribunal ruled that services consumed abroad are beyond the scope of service tax, warranting a refund of erroneously paid taxes.
CESTAT overturned the order that had previously confirmed the demand on expenses such as deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, and DO charges. These expenses were initially collected by the assessee from their clients and then paid to the service provider.
CESTAT Delhi held that no service tax is payable as the assessee did not receive any consideration for providing a corporate guarantee.
An in-depth examination of the changes introduced to the GST Appellate Tribunal, the implications of these reforms, and the challenges that remain.
CESTAT held that the utilization of credit by any unit within the same entity would not cause any loss to the Exchequer. This is because the credit disallowed to one unit is proportionally made available to the second unit. From a company’s perspective, the net credit availed and utilized remains unchanged.
High Court held that the Order of Appellate Authority allowing refund to assessee cannot be ignored solely because Revenue decided to challenge the order allowing refund, directed the Revenue to disburse refund along with interest and clarified that Revenue is not precluded from availing any remedy and in case Revenue succeeds they would be entitled to recovery the amount disbursed.
CESTAT, Kolkata made a significant ruling regarding the amendment in Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Previous version of the rule stated ‘taken or utilized,’ but it was modified to ‘taken and utilized.’ This alteration in wording clearly indicates the legislative intent to exclude the imposition of interest when the credit has been taken but not utilized.
