The recent ruling by CESTAT on Chandigarh Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise has declared that the collection of Adda fee by transport corporations as part of statutory functions does not amount to “Business Auxiliary Service” (BAS).
Explore the CESTAT’s recent ruling in the case of Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills vs Commissioner of Central Excise, where the tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for Educational Cess due to its exclusion in the area-based exemption notification.
Learn about CESTAT’s recent ruling in the Aricent Technologies case, which validates the grant of CENVAT credit even when service-exporting premises are not registered under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
ead the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of Commissioner, Namakkal Municipality Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The case deals with the imposition of penalties and interest on service tax retrospectively. The CESTAT Chennai sets aside the interest and penalties, citing the retrospective amendment and the principle of non-ex post facto penalties.
CESTAT Hyderabad in case of Regency Ceramics Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Puducherry examines applicability of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and benefit of remission for goods lost due to fire or arson.
In the recent landmark decision, CESTAT Ahmedabad has allowed Cenvat Credit on sugar cess paid as CVD on raw sugar imports, favoring Renuka Sugars Limited. This ruling, echoing several previous judgements, clarifies the position of cess as excise duty.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty not payable as there is no contravention of Valuation Rules as an important part of the machine sold has been replaced with a less advanced component, slight reduction in the value of the machine sold is found to be normal.
CESTAT Delhi has remanded a case involving National Engineering Industries Ltd. back for reconsideration. The dispute concerns the wrongful availment of Cenvat credit on ineligible services.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of duty paid under mistake of law cannot be denied when the refund claim is filed within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In a dispute involving Jagat Janani Services and the Commissioner of Central Excise, CESTAT Kolkata has ordered re-adjudication after the original adjudicating authority rejected a reconciliation statement without adequate reasoning.
