CESTAT held that Department could not solely rely on audit queries and objections to invoke extended period of limitation. It reiterated that appellant, being a Private Limited Company, had its Profit/Loss Account and Balance Sheet accessible as public documents, thus undermining any allegation of suppression.
CESTAT Mumbai remands Michigan Engineers Pvt Ltd’s case for re-adjudication, questioning service classification and subcontractor’s role in taxable services.
Understand CESTAT’s decision on inclusion of separately shown freight and insurance charges in excisable goods’ assessable value.
Read the detailed analysis of the CESTAT Allahabad order directing the Commissioner of Customs to return seized gold, ruling it wasn’t smuggled. Learn about the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Sai Max Jewelers.
CESTAT Mumbai: Saf Yesat Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – penalties deemed jurisdictionally void for issuing second SCN without adjudicating first.
In Roop Telesonic Ultrasonix Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad), SEZ service tax refund upheld despite procedural lapse.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in Sanofi India Limited’s favor, stating syringes without needles are not parts/accessories of goods under 9018, warranting a concessional duty rate.
CESTAT Kolkata: Shri Vijay Kumar versus Commissioner of Central Excise – penalties under Customs Act section 112 deleted as no knowledge of gold concealed in bags.
Service Tax demands for residential complexes were set aside when the units were developed for personal use by the members of co-operative societies. This principle was upheld in various judgments cited by Saumya Developers, indicating that no Service Tax was payable on residential units created for personal use.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules in favor of Microsoft India, stating services rendered to overseas entity are exports, exempting from service tax.
