CESTAT Chennai rules in favor of United India Insurance Co., allowing Cenvat credit for vehicle repairs despite invoices in vehicle owners’ names. Analysis and implications.
In this analysis of Tehsildar Koil Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Allahabad rules on time-barred appeals, emphasizing the 30-day limit for filing
CESTAT Delhi held that once the goods are cleared for home consumption after examination and assessment, unless there is an evidence to support, demand u/s. 28 invoking extended period of limitation cannot be raised unless there is evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts are proven.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license unjustified as there is no evidence that shows that the customs broker was aware about the mis-declaration of weight of pan masala as declared in the shipping bill.
Read the full text of CESTAT Chennai’s order in the Hyundai Motors vs. Commissioner of Customs case. Relief granted due to 9-year delay in ADGFT’s customs exemption decision.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai order on whether providing investment advice abroad qualifies as export of services. Detailed analysis, conclusions, and implications.
In a Customs case, CESTAT Chennai instructs the adjudicating authority to verify EODC for Solar Soles Pvt Ltd, potential benefits to follow upon production.
Read about recent CESTAT Chennai order in case of K. Mayakrishnan vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. Tribunal ruled that a Service Tax demand without specifying service category in Show Cause Notice is not maintainable.
Read the full analysis of the CESTAT Chandigarh order on Punjab State Grains Procurement Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Learn how a vague service tax notice was successfully challenged, highlighting legal scrutiny and limitations. Explore the details of the case, arguments, and the crucial decision made on 03/11/2023.
Read the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the Sinnamani Vs Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT quashes penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, citing the absence of direct evidence of connivance. Explore the analysis and conclusion of the order.
