CESTAT Kolkata held that circular cannot impose new condition and restrict scope of the exemption notification. Accordingly, demand of customs duty based on condition imposed vide circular no. 24/98- Cus unjustified.
CESTAT Kolkata held that order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter set aside as the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner has taken into account all such elements at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment.
Read about the CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Jindal Saw Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, where confiscation of ‘Plate Leveler’ parts was quashed.
Read about CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, where findings of SVB were not considered binding.
Read about CESTAT Delhi’s decision in the case of Incredible Indian Moments Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner (Appeals) and Additional Director General, where Service Tax demand on tour operators was quashed.
CESTAT Mumbai criticizes Customs Department for confiscating immovable property without notice, compromising the integrity of the adjudication process. Details of the case explained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd., stating no service tax on computer-to-computer linkage charges for stock broking companies. Details of the case here.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that service tax isn’t applicable to materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient during construction. Read the full case analysis.
CESTAT Delhi sets aside service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency Service, citing lack of evidence to prove service provided to NTPC. Full case analysis here.
CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in the IL & FS Transportation case, where it quashed a service tax demand due to failure to establish a violation of conditions under Rule 6.
