CESTAT Delhi held that demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as demand is based on the records of the assessee or other records which DGCEI could obtain through income tax department. Scrutiny of such records should have been done within time limit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that impugned gold cannot be seized u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it is a case of town seizure and revenue has failed to prove that gold in question is smuggled one. Accordingly, gold not liable for confiscation.
CESTAT Chennai held that show cause notice not specifying specific service rather demanding service tax on consolidated tax liability makes the show cause notice indefensible. Accordingly, the demand raised thereon is liable to be set aside.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi order on Nagar Parishadservice tax case. Details on charges, legal arguments, and penalties. Analysis of the verdict and its implications.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad order on Commissioner vs Sheena Textiles. Detailed analysis of the duty-free machinery dispute, conditions of exemption, and legal implications.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Suraj Industries vs. C.C.E & S.T.-Silvassa. Analysis of Cenvat Credit Rules, exemption dispute, key arguments, and tribunal’s verdict.
Explore Odisha Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise case. Detailed analysis of let export order, duty payment, and refund claim rejection.
CESTAT Kolkata held that processing fee, transfer fee, administrative charges, etc. collected from land allottees as fixed by IDCO are statutory in nature. Accordingly, service tax is not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Bangalore held that rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 will be applicable for determination of assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that no reliance can be placed on statements of third party without tangible corroborative evidence. Accordingly, recovery of Cenvat Credit under rule 14 rightly dropped.
