CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling on the Khandelwal Laboratories P Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CE case underscores the principle that duty-paid goods used as input should qualify for MODVAT credit, regardless of the name on the Bills of Entry.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT Credit towards service tax paid on meal coupons and group insurance for employees is duly available as input service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad recently rejected Nirma Limited’s appeal, determining that the clearance of goods without a lab test and claiming goods were mixed in a tank was an afterthought.
Discover the judgment of the CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, where revocation of Central Excise Registration was deemed meaningless post-GST implementation.
Discover the verdict and implications of the Pankaj Khare Vs Union of India case where the Allahabad High Court addressed GST exemption for practicing advocates.
Explore the case of Kalpataru Agroforest Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & CX, where CESTAT ruled on a Service Tax refund claim related to export freight charges.
An in-depth examination of the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs K.V. Paints & Chemicals Co., where CESTAT ruled on the validity of tax proceedings against a deceased individual.
Insights into the CESTAT Bangalore’s decision to dismiss an appeal by Chakiat Agencies Pvt Ltd, due to the issuance of Discharge Certificates under the SVLDRS.
Delve into the Vedanta Aluminium Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise case, where CESTAT Kolkata set aside an order rejecting a refund claim of service tax and ordered re-adjudication due to the absence of a stated reason in the original decision.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proving that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer. Accordingly, since incidence of the duty has been passed on to the buyers therefore, the refund is hit by the principles of unjust enrichment.
