Chandigarh CESTAT ruling in Maharaja Crane Services vs. Commissioner of CGST – Applicability of Limitation Act to service tax matters. Legal insights on demand beyond the five-year limit.
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh order in Manavi Exim Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. Learn about the implications of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act on re-assessment and the importance of a speaking order.
Nayara Energy Limited Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Rajkot (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that the adjudication authority in respect of most of the services denied the credit on the ground that no evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that the services was availed by the appellant and also on the ground that there is […]
KEC International Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT New Delhi) amount as was prayed to be refunded is admittedly an amount other than the duty or interest which is the subject matter of refund under Section 11 B. Keeping in view the same, to my opinion Section 11B should not have been […]
It was held that when an Institute run by a State Government and associated in implementation of various welfare schemes of the Government, the allegations of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement can be nothing but absurd.
Shree Mohangarh Construction Co. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT New Delhi) The first contract is supply of river sand; it is not for loading or unloading any cargo. Needless to say that if somebody has to supply river sand it has to loaded into the truck and unloaded it at the […]
Evershine Customs (C & F) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs a) The penalty under section 112 on the Customs Broker is set aside because even if the allegation that the CB has not fulfilled his obligations under CBLR 2013 is proven, no penalty can be imposed on this ground under section 112 of the […]
Meena Krishna Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the flats belonging to the appellant which she purchased under Registered Sale deeds dated 31.03.2008 out of monies received as gifts from her mother-in-law and father-in-law, can be proceeded against by the Excise […]
Since it was not possible to sustain the CVD levied for ‘other program’ and if the other program was excluded from the subsidy margin determination, assessee would fall below the de minimis level. The imposition of 2.47% CVD on assessee at serial no. 8 of the notification dated January 8, 2020 was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Gujarat Eco Textile Park Limited floated integrated textile park under the scheme of integrated textile parks (SITP) formed by the Government of India (Ministry of Textiles).
