CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of manufacturing of tugs and barges cannot be classified as supply of manpower and hence cannot be taxed under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable on person who causes to be made, signed or used any false declaration or fraudulent document
CESTAT held that number of appeals should correspond with number of distinct decisions or orders, not number of order numbers in an original order. Essentially, if a single order-in-original has multiple numbers, it doesn’t necessitate multiple appeals.
CESTAT Chennai supports Fourrts India Laboratories, ruling that physician samples fall under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Dive into the details of this landmark decision.
Detailed analysis of Beach Minerals Company’s appeal against Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ruling. CESTAT Chennai orders fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Chennai held that tendering of an order to an unauthorized person or sending it without ‘registered post with acknowledgement due’ is not considered as a valid service of order. Accordingly, matter disposed of by way of remand.
CESTAT Chennai held that once the licencing authority has found that the licencing conditions have been fulfilled, it would not be open to the customs authorities too contend that the imports under the licence are contrary to law.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for the exporters found to not exist during subsequent verification undertaken by the officers. Accordingly, revocation of Customs Broker licence unjustified.
Explore the CESTAT Kolkata ruling on whether flue gas generated during metallurgical coke manufacturing is a manufactured product and subject to excise duty. Learn about the legal analysis and implications.
The crux of the matter revolved around whether such programs, including outstation camps and other activities, are subject to service tax or can avail exemptions.
