CESTAT Mumbai ruling: Corporate guarantees without commission not liable for service tax. Analysis of UltraTech Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX case.
Legal battle between Ambica Engineering Works and C.C.E. & S.T. in light of alleged misapplication of Exemption Notification No. 6/2022-CE and penalty imposed under Rule 25 and Section 11AC.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty u/s. 112 not imposable as goods are not held liable for confiscation. Further, penalty cannot be imposed on EOUs for failure to achieve positive NFE.
CESTAT Bangalore held that without any such evidences based on the examination report of live consignment, one cannot extrapolate the same to the past consignments. Accordingly, demand for all the past consignments set aside.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Sabic Innovative Plastics India Pvt Ltd, allowing CENVAT credit for Management Consultancy Services and halting enforcement of demand notice.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict on C.C.E. & S.T vs. Shreno Limited case regarding excise duty demand under Rule 6(3) of CCR when CENVAT credit is reversed on common input services for exempted steam.
Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict on SSI exemption for Submersible Pumps adhering to BIS standards. Learn about the case, analysis, and conclusions.
CESTAT Kolkata rules on excise duty for physician samples distributed free of cost by medicament manufacturers. Analysis of the case of Parker Robinson Private Limited vs. CCE.
Explore the Enbee Education Centre case vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. CESTAT Ahmedabad clarifies the distinction between ‘consignment agent’ and ‘commission agent.’ Full text of the judgment included.
Demand of service tax for the period from 1st April 2003 to March 2005 was prima facie wrong because appellant had started rendering services to M/s IBP Co. Ltd. from 01.09.2005 as was clear from the agreement dated 01.09.2005 which had been accepted in the order-in-original.
