CESTAT Delhi held that miscellaneous services rendered by air travel agent like planning travel itinerary of clients, etc. are covered within the ambit of Air Travel Agent and cannot be classified under Business Support Service.
In Gujarat Guardian Ltd Vs C.C.E-Bharuch, CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that remuneration paid as commission to whole-time directors based on profit doesn’t constitute an employer-employee relationship, thus no service tax applies.
Read about the CESTAT Ahmedabads ruling in the case of Inox India P Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, affirming the exemption of service tax for authorized operations within SEZ.
Delve into Veneer Mills vs Commissioner of Customs case dissected by CESTAT Chennai, affirming SAD refund despite certificate dispute, with expert insights.
PS Bedi & Co Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs case analyzed. CESTAT Chennai sets aside confiscation of hand tools, deeming them capital goods under FTP.
Oasis Impex appeals CESTAT Ahmedabad’s reclassification of imported calcite powder. CESTAT rules against rejection without cogent reason. Details of the case explained.
Dive into the analysis of Kuoni Travel India Pvt Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) case where the court emphasized identifying specific services and consideration received for levying service tax.
In a case between Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, CESTAT Chennai rules that MRP-based assessment applies only to mineral water and aerated water, not packaged drinking water.
Read the detailed analysis of the Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. case by CESTAT Delhi regarding the classification of a lotion dispenser pump under CTH 84248990.
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.
