CESTAT Chennai’s order on Visanthi & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. Analysis of service tax demand for construction services.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Hindustan Coca Cola, allowing them a refund and rejecting the concept of unjust enrichment. Learn about the case and its implications.
In this case study, explore the implications of the CESTAT’s ruling that a refund claim for CENVAT credit cannot be denied for failure to justify inability to utilize it
CESTAT Mumbai held that that de novo adjudication order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having been based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
CESTAT Mumbai clarifies that review proceedings cannot exceed the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice in Capgemini Technology Service India Ltd vs. Commissioner of CGST. Details of the case.
CESTAT Mumbai adjudicates case of Cable Corporation of India Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise. Learn how certificates & precedents helped the appellants claim Excise Duty Exemption.
In the Commissioner of Customs vs Deepak Dialani trademark case, cross-examination was unavailable and the evidence inadmissible. Find out the implications here!
CESTAT Mumbai allows CENVAT credit for services related to manufacturing and clearing final products up to the place of removal. A critical analysis of the JSW Steel Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise case.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Appellant is merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder. Accordingly, Appellant is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle. Hence, demand of duty unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that benefit of notification no. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010 cannot be denied as commercial production from expanded capacity commenced on or after 06.02.2010.
