CESTAT Ahmedabad held that higher redemption fine and penalty imposable as appellant is a repeated offender and is violating the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition prescribed by DGFT frequently.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that restriction of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoice is applicable only in case of sale of goods. In the present case, restriction of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoice is not applicable as there is only a stock transfer.
A proprietorship firm and the partnership firm even though the said proprietor was one of the partner in the partnership firm, both could not be a related person under section 2(41) of the Companies Act,1956.
Read about the Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. C.S.T. – Service Tax case, where the need for legal protection of intellectual property for tax liability is discussed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that mis-declaration allegations without complete evidence and violation of natural justice cannot be upheld.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad addresses a case involving a refund dispute related to abatement and excise duty, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and transparency.
Understand why the assessee chose not to avail of the Conditional Service Tax Exemption with this analysis of the arguments in Isgec Unit Dahej case. Alert: Notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005.
In a recent case, CESTAT Ahmedabad provides relief to Bajaj Herbals, ruling that no service tax is leviable on advertising agency services provided by foreign-based service providers for marketing. Get the full details here.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict in Crown Ceramics Vs C.C.E. & S.T.- Rajkot. Excise duty not demandable for a procedural lapse in the case of alleged clandestine removal of goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad grants relief to Intas Pharmaceuticals, ruling that Customs Duty benefit cannot be denied to a loan licensee importer. Details of the case here.