The CESTAT, Allahabad in the matter of M/s. T.S. Motors India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow [Service Tax Appeal No. 70377 of 2018 dated June 17, 2022] set aside the order passed by Revenue Department demanding Service tax for alleged suppression of correct value of taxable service by invoking the extended period of limitation.
Explore the CESTAT Mumbai ruling in Raychem RPG Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of GST case on CENVAT credit refund. Detailed analysis of eligibility, rejection reasons, and legal perspective.
Held that para 2 of Circular 35/2017-Cus is clearly contrary to Section 110 A and is, consequently, void and unenforceable at law. It is not permissible for the CBEC, by executive fiat, to incorporate limitations, on provisional release of seized goods, which find no place in the parent statutory provision, i.e. Section 110 A of the Act.
Neither the submissions during the hearing nor the records of the proceedings before the lower authorities indicated correct segregation of credit taken on ‘input services’ between eligible and ineligible except to the extent that the formula had to be resorted to, therefore, the re-computation of segregation of credit restored to the original authority before whom the accountal of credit taken on ‘input service’ should be furnished by the appellant herein and to which the ratio in the formula was to be applied.
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad case – Anjaleem Enterprise P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Learn how lower authorities violated Tribunal orders on duty, depreciation, and payment.
Held that a person carrying on a business through a branch or agency in any country shall be treated as having a business establishment in that country and such establishment situated abroad as a separate person.
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.
