CESTAT Chandigarh’s ruling in Lufthansa German Airlines vs. Commissioner of Service Tax clarifies that service tax doesn’t apply to passenger service fees & airport taxes.
Read about CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in Jaika Motors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, quashing a service tax demand on incentive amounts due to non-inclusion of the activity under ‘BAS’.
The CESTAT Chandigarh rules that providing a bank guarantee to group companies does not attract service tax. Learn more about this decision.
CESTAT Chennai’s landmark order: Accumulated CENVAT credit from an EOU unit can be transferred to a DTA unit upon exiting EOU status. Analysis and implications.
CESTAT Mumbai ruling: Corporate guarantees without commission not liable for service tax. Analysis of UltraTech Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX case.
Legal battle between Ambica Engineering Works and C.C.E. & S.T. in light of alleged misapplication of Exemption Notification No. 6/2022-CE and penalty imposed under Rule 25 and Section 11AC.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty u/s. 112 not imposable as goods are not held liable for confiscation. Further, penalty cannot be imposed on EOUs for failure to achieve positive NFE.
CESTAT Bangalore held that without any such evidences based on the examination report of live consignment, one cannot extrapolate the same to the past consignments. Accordingly, demand for all the past consignments set aside.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Sabic Innovative Plastics India Pvt Ltd, allowing CENVAT credit for Management Consultancy Services and halting enforcement of demand notice.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict on C.C.E. & S.T vs. Shreno Limited case regarding excise duty demand under Rule 6(3) of CCR when CENVAT credit is reversed on common input services for exempted steam.
