CESTAT Ahmedabad rules non-inclusion of transportation costs in assessable value doesn’t justify denying CENVAT Credit, providing relief to APAR Industries Ltd.
Friends Cargo Services successfully appealed a revoked license, arguing they fulfilled KYC obligations and weren’t responsible for untraceable exporters.
In a recent ruling, CESTAT Ahmedabad states larger limitation period inapplicable for de-bonding after verification & issuance of no dues certificate.
CESTAT clarifies service tax demands cannot be based solely on ITR or 26AS statements. The department must prove service provision, recipient, and consideration. This decision upholds consistent rulings and protects businesses from unsubstantiated demands.
CESTAT directed the customs department to deliver a certified copy of their final order to Vedanta Limited following proper procedures. This ensures Vedanta receives the order and can exercise their appeal rights.
CESTAT Chennai rules redemption fine cannot exceed market value in Vinayaga Traders vs Commissioner of Customs case, setting precedent for import disputes.
CESTAT Chennai dismisses Commissioner of Customs appeal, upholding Suguna Poultry Farm’s refund claim under section 26A of the Customs Act.
Enterprise Software Solutions Lab Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore) Introduction: The case of Enterprise Software Solutions Lab Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, adjudicated by CESTAT Bangalore, revolves around the classification of T4 Fingerprint Time & Attendance System and K200 Proximity Time & Attendance System. The appellant, based in Bangalore, contested the assessing authority’s classification […]
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore ruling on business transfer agreements with non-compete clauses and the implications for Service Tax. Get insights into Naveen Chava Vs Commissioner of Central Tax case.
CESTAT Bangalore rules that Finger Print Readers, having individual functions, cannot be classified under the CTH of Computer Accessories. Read the full order here.
