Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Introduction The case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T. revolves around the interpretation and applicability of Notification No. 29/89-C.E. dated 01.03.1989. This article delves into the details of the notification, the conditions for its benefit, and the subsequent legal proceedings. Detailed Analysis […]
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Bhilosa Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E. & S.T. case, clarifying interest on delayed refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on Steel & Metals Co. penalty for CENVAT invoicing violations. Understand the case, analysis, and the implications of Rule 26.
Explore the CESTAT Delhi ruling in Ceramic Tableware case against the Commissioner of Customs. Analysis of clerical error, redemption fine, and penalty under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Atul Parekh vs. C.C.E. & S.T. case. Penalties under Rule 26 for abetment in fraudulent Cenvat Credit nullified. Case details and analysis.
Explore the case of Tega Industries vs. C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) as CESTAT overturns refund denial. Analysis of Business Support Service, procedural lapses, and distinct identities.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd, stating that credit denial based on photocopies of invoices is a procedural lapse, not a valid reason.
Yara Fertilizers India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai) Introduction: The case of Yara Fertilizers India Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, adjudicated by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai, revolves around the classification dispute of the imported product ‘yaravita zintrac (zinc oxide suspension concentrate).’ The disagreement stems from […]
Dive into the dispute of Acmechem Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai). Explore challenges to value rejection, breaches of natural justice, and a crucial assessment analysis.
Charges of clandestine removal cannot be sustained as the evidences brought into the record by the department are incomplete, inconsistent and not a reliable piece of evidence.
