In Scaria Thomas & Co vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) case, learn about the absence of penalty under Section 78 in service tax due to no misrepresentation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on the utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of excise duty by 100% EOU units during debonding. Detailed analysis and implications.
CESTAT Delhi held that if the audit points out some wrong assessment which was not pointed out by the officer scrutinizing the ER-1 return, the fault lies at the doorstep of the officer. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation bad-in-law.
In Gidderbaha vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Ludhiana case, CESTAT orders reconsideration on merits due to improper rejection based on pre-deposit compliance.
CESTAT Chennai’s ruling on penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for importing Chinese mobile phones. Analysis of K. Natarajan vs. Commissioner of Customs case.
In absence of evidence and PCA’s registration under Society Registration Act, tribunal found that PCA was not liable to pay service tax under Club or Association Service.
Analysis of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs CCEST case where issue of excise duty refund and applicability of limitation under section 11B were discussed. Learn more.
Discover CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling on service tax for compression of natural gas as manufacturing activity. Learn about the case and its implications.
Rectification of order was not made only on apparent error but issue in rectification of order was mixed question of law and fact that on which date service tax is leviable even Cenvat credit issue also involve a detailed scrutiny.
CESTAT Bangalore quashes appeal, permitting the refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) on imported goods without the need for VAT Challans to show the Bill of Entry.
