The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata has upheld the seizure of Betel Nuts and the imposition of penalties, dismissing the appeal by Sunil Kumar Yadav, who claimed ownership of the goods.
The CESTAT quashes penalty against SAB Industries Limited, ruling that service tax cannot be levied under ‘Works Contract Service’ once demanded under ‘Commercial Construction Service’.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of gold bars and imposition of penalty thereon on the basis of retracted statements without proving that the gold bars are smuggled in nature is unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter for reconsideration in case of classification of goods i.e. Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers under HSN code 63053200 or under 39231090.
CESTAT Bangalore held that value of free physician samples should be done as per rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Valuation under rule 8 of the 2000 Rules by adding 15% profit to the cost of manufacture not acceptable.
Explore the recent case verdict by CESTAT Bangalore regarding K Kiran Tyres Vs Commissioner of Customs, focusing on the confiscation of illegally imported goods without a valid license.
Insightful analysis of the recent case between the Commissioner of Customs and Doosan Infracore India Pvt. Ltd., where CESTAT Chennai dismissed the appeal of the revenue department on the sanction of the SAD refund claim.
Explore the CESTAT Hyderabad ruling favoring Jindal Stainless Limited in a pivotal case against the Commissioner of Customs. The case discusses the rejection of a refund claim due to Covid-19-related filing delays.
Review the case between Lotus Integrated Logistics and the Commissioner of Customs where CBLR violations didn’t result in license revocation or max penalty.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim under section 11B filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is not maintainable. Here, relevant date was date on which appellant has voluntarily paid the short payment of service tax.
