In a case between Sree Gokulam Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, CESTAT Chennai rules that MRP-based assessment applies only to mineral water and aerated water, not packaged drinking water.
Read the detailed analysis of the Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. case by CESTAT Delhi regarding the classification of a lotion dispenser pump under CTH 84248990.
Explore the significance of order communication in appeals provision, as clarified by CESTAT Ahmedabad in Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs C.C.-Jamnagar case, setting aside rejection orders.
Dive into the analysis of service tax exemption under section 65(105)(zzzza) for construction not primarily for commerce/industry, as seen in RBS Candiaparcar Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai).
CESTAT Ahmedabad dismisses customs duty demand on Jain Grani Marmo for excess weight in imported marble blocks, emphasizing trade practices and EOU rights.
Maersk Line India Pvt Ltd’s case on confiscated containers under Customs Notification analyzed by CESTAT Ahmedabad. Details on import, violation, and verdict.
R.S.D. Steel Industries vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise: CESTAT Chandigarh rules job work of cutting steel coils/plates not liable for service tax under BAS or BSS.
CESTAT Chennai allows CENVAT credit for service tax paid on broadcasting fees by Radaan Media, setting a precedent for media production companies. Read the implications.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore’s decision on the classification of imported “Student interactive respond system,” as it delves into the applicability of Customs Tariff Chapter Note 5(E) and the implications for classification under CTH 8543.
Explore why NIDB data alone isn’t enough for value determination as CESTAT Chennai annuls penalties in Gypsie Impex vs Customs case. Full analysis here.
