CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in Arcelor Mittal case, classifying procuring sales orders for foreign steel mills serving customers in India as an export of service, leading to the quashing of a service tax demand.
Dive into the CESTAT Chennai case of S. Thiagarajan vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise. Explore how the penalty under Section 78 cannot be sustained on a tax demand with retrospective amendments.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise regarding CENVAT credit on capital goods in a Marine Terminal Facility (MTF).
Discover the legal proceedings in the case of M/s Sainath Clearing Agency, where the CESTAT Mumbai revokes a customs broker license and imposes a penalty, offering insights into the disciplinary actions against customs brokers
CESTAT Kolkata held that circular cannot impose new condition and restrict scope of the exemption notification. Accordingly, demand of customs duty based on condition imposed vide circular no. 24/98- Cus unjustified.
CESTAT Kolkata held that order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter set aside as the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner has taken into account all such elements at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment.
Read about the CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Jindal Saw Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, where confiscation of ‘Plate Leveler’ parts was quashed.
Read about CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, where findings of SVB were not considered binding.
Read about CESTAT Delhi’s decision in the case of Incredible Indian Moments Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner (Appeals) and Additional Director General, where Service Tax demand on tour operators was quashed.
CESTAT Mumbai criticizes Customs Department for confiscating immovable property without notice, compromising the integrity of the adjudication process. Details of the case explained.
