Explore the Y & Associates vs. Commissioner of Central Excise case with CESTAT Mumbai. Delve into the intricacies of ‘deemed’ manufacture, excisability, and the legislative intent.
Explore the legal battle of K.J. Associates against the Commissioner of Customs at CESTAT Bangalore. Dive into the intricacies of the case involving delayed issuance of orders, improper classification, and the release of confiscated goods.
Imported External/portable hard disk drive are classifiable under Tariff Item 8471 70 20 as Hard disk drives and not under Tariff Item 8471 70 30. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the instant issue about classification of External/Portable Hard Disc Drives is no more res integra and the appellants have rightly classified them under CTH 8471 7020.
Astrazeneca India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE (CESTAT Chennai) refund in respect of Hotel Accommodation Services is availed only for the benefit of the employees. The same issue has been allowed in favour of the appellants in their own case for the subsequent period. For these reasons, I hold that the refund […]
Explore the CESTAT Ahmedabad case of Majhar Muzaffar Hussain Sayed vs. C.C.-Mundra. Delve into the nuances of penalties imposed, cross-examination demands, and the remand for a fresh decision.
Mammon Concast Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly the melting scrap purchased by the appellant on high sea sale, is their input for manufacture of M.S. I further find that Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by […]
Home guards department was an agency of state government and therefore, could not be considered as ‘person’ engaged in the business of running security services. Therefore, there could be no levy of service tax on security services provided by the Home Guards Department as it was a part of its statutory function.
CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the refund claims of the assessee on the ground that credit reversal in Form GSTR-3B pertains to GST credit and not CENVAT credit. Held that, procedural delay will not disentitle the assessee from claiming refund when credit had been reversed in Form GSTR-3B.
Explore the legal battle of Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt. Ltd. against the Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Bangalore). Delve into the intricacies of the judgment and its implications on service tax for seconded employees.
Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST- Chandigarh (CESTAT Chandigarh) The facts of the case are not in dispute that a dispute between the appellant and the revenue was going on whether they were liable to pay service tax on their activity or not on export of services for the prior period. The […]
