CESTAT Chandigarh held that collection of toll by the assessee would not be considered as Business Auxiliary Service provided to NHAI as the assessee is not rendering any service which is incidental or auxiliary on behalf of NHAI and the NHAI is not undertaking any business activity.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to SEZ units are exempt from service tax vide notification no. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. Exemption benefit cannot be denied for procedural requirement.
In a tax dispute involving Metro Engineers, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a remand for reevaluation of service tax demands. The case highlights issues of differential service tax on various services and the potential misuse of penalty provisions.
In a tax dispute with Baroda Rayon Corporation, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a fresh review due to the legal status of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This case raises critical questions regarding the interpretation and application of taxation laws.
CESTAT Delhi held that the appellant can duly avail the credit of service tax paid on rail freight on the strength of the certified copy of railway receipts read with Monthly Consolidated Certificates and STTG certificate issued by the Western Central railway.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that decision conveying denial of exemption under DFIA Scheme is challengeable by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Denial of exemption is not merely a query but the decision of assessing officer and hence appeal can be preferred against the same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad, in case of Khushi Enterprise vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman, has upheld the right to a service tax refund on export of goods, emphasizing that an invoice to an agent is just as valid as an invoice to principal.
Unpacking the latest CESTAT Chennai verdict on the PepsiCo India vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise case, exploring how PepsiCo India was granted the benefit of a 1% duty rate on fruit pulp following a reversal of ineligible credit.
CESTAT Ahmedabad set a precedent in Hussain Sheth Ispat Vs Commissioner of Customs, ruling that Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) is not relevant to the assessable value of goods, nullifying the differential duty demand.
A critical review of the case between Graphite India Limited and the Commissioner of Customs, with an emphasis on the significance of adhering to Project Import regulations and the implications of not doing so.
