When an order has already been passed upholding the sanction of part of the refund claim, the same authority cannot pass another order setting aside the sanction of entire claim. Such order is ab initio void and non-est.
Read the analysis of the Welspun India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CESTAT Ahmedabad case, where CESTAT quashes the reversal of CENVAT credit on Cotton Terry Towels due to non-insertion of Rule 11(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad order on the determination of Cenvat Credit for SS Pipes, Valves, and more. The matter is remanded for reconsideration based on new judgments.
Read the CESTAT Chandigarh order quashing the excise duty demand on bought-out items by Oil Lube Systems. The appeal is partly allowed due to lack of proof for inclusion.
Read the CESTAT Kolkata order upholding the service tax demand on Mridul Phukan for providing taxable service to ONGC under commercial or industrial construction service.
Analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad case between Qumruzzama Khan & C.C.E & S.T.-Vapi regarding penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Service Tax Leviable on Real Estate Agent if it acted as a middleman/ agent in the purchase and sale of immovable property and the amount received is consideration for such services.
Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on interest for excise duty refund. Find out when the interest starts and its duration in the case of Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd.
The appellants are cable operator and providing cable services to the subscribers on the basis of signals received from the MSO. The subscriber has not asked for any brand for providing the said services.
Trinity International Forwarders, the appellant assessee was a Customs Broker. The assessee had been accused of violated the Regulations of 11(d), 11(e) or 11(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.
