Comfort Polymers Pvt. Ltd. wins the case against CCE- Jammu at CESTAT Chandigarh. CENVAT credit on destroyed goods is allowed as per Rule 3(5B) and 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Chennai grants relief to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) by quashing the demand for service tax on telecom services for the period 01.06.2008 to 31.03.2011 due to the non-inclusion of an Explanation in Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Rules.
CESTAT Chandigarh sets aside penalty and interest imposed on Punj Brothers Limited for non-payment of customs duty on clearance of goods, citing limitation and lack of mutuality of interest between the parties. The case involved related party transactions and application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
CESTAT Delhi upholds penalty imposed under section 114AA of the Customs Act on M/s Surendra Electricals for mis-declaration of the quantity of LED lights in the bill of entry.
CESTAT Chennai reduces penalties imposed on Artisan’s Welfare Society for attempting to export red sander wood in the form of pillar tops in violation of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Act.
The CESTAT Chandigarh upheld the deletion of service tax on installation commissioning services on the ground of limitation. The case involved Himachal Futuristic Communication Limited.
In the case of Rajasthan Syntex Limited vs. Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi), the issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to interest for the intervening period when the rebate claim, which was retained by the Adjudicating Authority illegally, was ultimately sanctioned.
CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Hence, demand unsustained.
CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Hence, demand unsustained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax paid on services received from overseas service providers in foreign countries duly refundable as the same cannot be fastened with the liability of service tax as a ‘deemed service provider’ in India.
