In Gidderbaha vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Ludhiana case, CESTAT orders reconsideration on merits due to improper rejection based on pre-deposit compliance.
CESTAT Chennai’s ruling on penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for importing Chinese mobile phones. Analysis of K. Natarajan vs. Commissioner of Customs case.
In absence of evidence and PCA’s registration under Society Registration Act, tribunal found that PCA was not liable to pay service tax under Club or Association Service.
Analysis of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs CCEST case where issue of excise duty refund and applicability of limitation under section 11B were discussed. Learn more.
Discover CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling on service tax for compression of natural gas as manufacturing activity. Learn about the case and its implications.
Rectification of order was not made only on apparent error but issue in rectification of order was mixed question of law and fact that on which date service tax is leviable even Cenvat credit issue also involve a detailed scrutiny.
CESTAT Bangalore quashes appeal, permitting the refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods without the need for VAT Challans to show the Bill of Entry.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that in view of the wider scope given in the definition under Section 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, cenvat credit of all the Input Services used in or in relation to the manufacture and sale of final products or in relation to the business activity cannot be denied.
CESTAT Chennai held that nature of service involving both service as well as transfer of property in goods/material is classifiable under ‘works contract. Hence re-classifying the same under erection, commission and installation is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used for fabrication of capital goods like pollution control equipment, heating furnace, casting machine, coating machine, chimney, rolling machine, reheating machine, control panel, etc. is eligible.
