CESTAT Chandigarh rules in favor of Souvenior Ceramics, granting exemption from excise duty for castable refractory goods supplied to power projects. Detailed analysis here.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad addresses a case involving a refund dispute related to abatement and excise duty, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and transparency.
Read about the CESTAT Hyderabad decision in Shriram Life Insurance vs. Commissioner of Customs case. CESTAT quashes service tax demand, citing Section 73(3) of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of benefit of notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2004 owing to reversal of CENVAT Credit needs to be examined by lower authorities. Accordingly, matter restored back to original authority for fresh determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as differential duty was paid with interest on expiry of export obligation period, there is no violation of the conditions of Advance License under Notification no. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 and hence redemption fine and penalty set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for availment of entire amount of credit of input services even though certain portion must have been used in manufacture of exempted goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 [valuation rules] is effected only when inputs are supplied and sale is effected to the buyer by the Principal Manufacturer. Thus, Rule 10A of valuation rules doesn’t come into play for all manner of ‘job-work’.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the data resumed from the computer print out alone cannot be relied upon to demand duty, without any corroborating evidence. Accordingly, duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the catering service provided to the students in the educational institution qualify for service tax exemption as per the notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
CESTAT Kolkata quashes the service tax demand on cargo handling service in the case of Usha Martin Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. Details and analysis.
