Department did not have a case that assessee had not discharged Service Tax on the agency commission received as a Steamer Agent or CHA.
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable
CESTAT Chennai’s order on Visanthi & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. Analysis of service tax demand for construction services.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Hindustan Coca Cola, allowing them a refund and rejecting the concept of unjust enrichment. Learn about the case and its implications.
In this case study, explore the implications of the CESTAT’s ruling that a refund claim for CENVAT credit cannot be denied for failure to justify inability to utilize it
CESTAT Mumbai held that that de novo adjudication order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having been based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
CESTAT Mumbai clarifies that review proceedings cannot exceed the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice in Capgemini Technology Service India Ltd vs. Commissioner of CGST. Details of the case.
CESTAT Mumbai adjudicates case of Cable Corporation of India Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise. Learn how certificates & precedents helped the appellants claim Excise Duty Exemption.
In the Commissioner of Customs vs Deepak Dialani trademark case, cross-examination was unavailable and the evidence inadmissible. Find out the implications here!
