Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s order in Vidyut Corporation vs. C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman, where excise duty demands, interest, and penalties are deemed unsustainable due to a mere wrong mention of registration in payment.
CESTAT Bangalore quashes penalty under Section 112A of Customs Act on undervaluation of artificial flowers and photo frames due to lack of corroborative evidence. Analysis of the case.
CESTAT Bangalore rules in Rafeek K.T. vs Commissioner of Customs case: Retracted statements without corroborative evidence deemed inadmissible.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on CENVAT credit eligibility. Intas Pharmaceuticals allowed to claim credit based on law at service receipt, not credit availing date.
Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Archna Traders vs. C.C.E. & S.T. on denial of VCES Scheme benefit under Section 106 of Finance Act 2013. Full analysis here.
CESTAT Kolkata quashes the rejection of a refund claim on Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid for shoe imports, citing non-inclusion of an allegation in the show cause notice.
CESTAT Kolkata case – Mishra & Mishra (Agency) Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs. Learn how CHA licenses cannot be revoked without direct involvement.
CESTAT Chandigarh’s ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines vs. Commissioner of Service Tax clarifies that service tax doesn’t apply to passenger service fees & airport taxes.
Read about CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in Jaika Motors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, quashing a service tax demand on incentive amounts due to non-inclusion of the activity under ‘BAS’.
The CESTAT Chandigarh rules that providing a bank guarantee to group companies does not attract service tax. Learn more about this decision.
