Explore CESTAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Archna Traders vs. C.C.E. & S.T. on denial of VCES Scheme benefit under Section 106 of Finance Act 2013. Full analysis here.
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.
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.
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.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the contract is for job-work carried out by the appellant for the service recipient. The same doesn’t fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and therefore the service tax demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that fact of clandestine manufacture and clearance thereof is established, however, since there is no clinching tangible evidence or any corroborative evidence to establish the appellant as a manufacturer, liability of duty, penalty cannot be fastened.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that suo moto re-credit duly allowable as eligibility of cenvat credit on outward transportation has attained finality and decided in favour of the appellant.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services related to pollution control of the factory is covered within the term ‘input services’ as per rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence eligible for cenvat credit.
