CESTAT Kolkata held that Commissioner (A) inadvertently dismissed the appeal treating it as time barred as the adjudication order dated 23.07.2018 was communicated to the appellant on 05.08.2018. Accordingly, matter remanded back to Commissioner (A) for deciding the issue on merits.
Jai Ba Metals Vs CCE (CESTAT Chandigarh) – Rule 9 will not be applicable When the goods are sold to related persons as well as to independent buyers
Mere lack of supplier response won’t invalidate appellant’s Kraft Paper production. Find out more about this CESTAT Ahmedabad order in this blog post!
Once transaction value of goods imported from associated companies are at arm’s length price under Rule 3(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 is accepted, Department cannot load 5% royalty to transaction value under Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007
Explore Chettinad Cement appeal at CESTAT Chennai against denial of CENVAT credit on imported steam coal. Analysis of rules, legal precedents, and the tribunal decision.
Explore case of Paras Founders & Engineers vs. C.C.E. – a dispute regarding excise duty & SSI exemption oversight. Read the analysis, background, legal precedents & CESTAT’s decision.
In case of Channel Management and Marketing vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Chandigarh asserts that extended period cannot be invoked as principal paid service tax on behalf of agent.
Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad): Demurrage charges not includable in custom valuation of imported goods for purpose of charging custom duty.
CESTAT emphasized that Point of Taxation Rules are not applicable when service is provided, and invoice is issued before introduction of POT rules.
CESTAT quashes penalty on MSK Shipping & Logistics for illegal export of red sander goods. Delve into the legal implications of this case.
