Explore the significance of order communication in appeals provision, as clarified by CESTAT Ahmedabad in Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs C.C.-Jamnagar case, setting aside rejection orders.
Dive into the analysis of service tax exemption under section 65(105)(zzzza) for construction not primarily for commerce/industry, as seen in RBS Candiaparcar Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai).
In a landmark decision, Allahabad High Court sets aside an order for erroneous GST refund recovery against KEC International, emphasizing hearing rights.
Bombay High Court quashes CGST order, mandates personal hearing under Section 75(4). Detailed analysis of the case and implications.
Explore Bombay High Court’s landmark ruling favoring Sinochem India against the Union of India. Analysis of chemical import dispute, court observations, and implications.
CESTAT Mumbai ruling: Cenvat credit refund cannot be denied without Rule 14 proceedings. Upholds eligibility for input services in export. Case reference: M/s. KKR India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay High Court admits Playerzpot’s petition challenging GST demand, issues notice. Detailed analysis of Rule 31A and CGST Act. Get insights into the legal battle.
Bombay HC directs CESTAT examination in Sarla Perf. Fibers vs. Union of India. Legal analysis of anti-dumping duty notifications. Petitioner challenges legality.
In a recent case, Lupin Limited challenged a recovery order related to excess cash refund under the Budgetary Support Scheme. Sikkim High Court directs reconsideration, highlighting crucial aspects.
The Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petitioner is a dealer in textiles registered with the State Authorities. It availed input tax credit. Input tax credit was sought to be denied on the allegation that the supplier is non-genuine tax payer at bogus entities.
