CESTAT Mumbai held that services provided by appellant (Commission agent) to their foreign principals is ‘export of service’ as contemplated under rule 3 of the 2005 Export Rules.
CESTAT Mumbai in Metro Fashions vs Commissioner of Customs, held that mere sending of Order-in-Original by registered post was not deemed to be valid communication, impacting the limitation period for an appeal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad recently ruled in the case of Fiberweb India Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Daman, shedding light on the limitations of selective departmental audits and customs duty demands.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in the case of Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.E. & S.T. Vadodara, opposing the application of an extended period of limitation for a customs duty demand on declared evaporation loss
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that trade discount is not includible in the assessable value hence central excise duty is not payable on the same.
CESTAT Chennai held that collection of CVD on basis of retail sale price in terms of Notification No. 49/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 24.12.2008 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in case of prepared glues and other prepared adhesives justified.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in subsequent show cause notice, where the Department has earlier issued Show Cause Notice in respect of the same subject-matter.
CESTAT’s decision clarifies that since the rent received by individual co-owners is below the specified threshold, there is no basis for imposing service tax on these amounts.
CESTAT Kolkata held that as per substituted provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, interest is not leviable where wrongly availed credit is only taken but not utilized.
Tribunal reiterated that excise duty is a tax on the manufacture, not on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. Thus, the surplus freight charges collected from customers were excluded from the assessable value for excise duty calculation.
