CESTAT Ahmedabad exempts NJ India Invest Pvt. Ltd. from service tax on mutual fund distribution incentives, magazine ads, and vocational training for sub-distributors.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that sugar boiled confectionery Kopiko is more specifically classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading [CETH] 1704 9090 and not under CETH 2101 as claimed by department.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty on the employee of CHA (Customs House Agent) cannot be imposed on the charge of wrong availment of drawback by the exporter as proven that he has not been benefited by attempt to claim excess drawback by exporter.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that co-owners are to be treated as independent service provider for calculating threshold limit of exemption under Notification Nos. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and No. 8/2008-ST dated 01.03.2008.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules non-technical persons cannot decide the classification of complex drug products. Key case: VVF India Ltd vs. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.
Read the detailed analysis of Gulmohar Park Mall Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad) where CESTAT upheld the adjustment of excess service tax towards subsequent liabilities.
Read the detailed analysis of Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad) where CESTAT rules on procedural lapses affecting Cenvat credit.
Learn about P I Industries Ltd’s appeal against customs duty demand for goods lost in a fire at their SEZ unit. Detailed analysis of SEZ Rules and Customs Act provisions.
Detailed analysis of Rajat International’s appeal against Customs duty, interest, and penalty for importing plastic broomsticks. Learn about the classification dispute and legal arguments.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that waste and scrap, even if exceeding SION norms, are exempt from customs duty provided they are cleared with proper permissions and duty payments.
