Explore the case of Saraswati Knitwear Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh) regarding interest on excess duty paid for clearing yarn. Discover the CESTAT’s decision.
CESTAT Kolkata rules that service tax is not applicable to rent received for immovable property services prior to June 2007. Details of the case and the verdict explained.
CESTAT Chennai rules no demand can survive against composite works contract contracts prior to 01.06.2007 in the case of Mertho Constructions vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
CESTAT Chennai rules transporters in mines not considered Goods Transport Agency (GTA) without consignment notes, dismissing Service Tax liability for Ramco Cements.
Kolkata High Court recently ruled that services provided during construction of a non-commercial sports complex are exempt from service tax.
CESTAT Chennai’s ruling in Balmer Lawrie & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise: Central excise duty on metal containers returned as scrap analyzed. No penalty levied.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of declared value based on NIDB data on similar goods unsustainable. Accordingly, differential duty demand and imposition of penalty thereon is unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of application for fixation of special rate under notification no. 32/99-CE and notification no. 31/2008-CE to new industrial units set up in North-Eastern States is incorrect and are in violation of law.
CESTAT Chennai rules that hiring space for ads on TN State Transport Corporation buses doesn’t qualify as advertising agency service, setting aside service tax demand.
CESTAT Hyderabad reduces the penalty for Sriram Srinivasa Rao, highlighting the case of gross negligence rather than collusion in the Customs Act 1962
