CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of M/s. Sophisticated Instrumentation, a charitable trust, stating that the extended limitation cannot be invoked when there is no intention to evade service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad dismisses Natural Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd’s appeal, upholding Service Tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service and rejecting financial hardship claim.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that when the agreement between the service provider and recipient is for a particular job and not for supply of man power, the activity cannot be classified under ‘Man Power Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’.
Read how Posco India successfully secured a refund of wrongly paid anti-dumping duty in a case against C.C.-Kandla, as decided by CESTAT Ahmedabad. Learn about the legal implications.
In Scaria Thomas & Co vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) case, learn about the absence of penalty under Section 78 in service tax due to no misrepresentation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on the utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of excise duty by 100% EOU units during debonding. Detailed analysis and implications.
Analysis of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs CCEST case where issue of excise duty refund and applicability of limitation under section 11B were discussed. Learn more.
Discover CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling on service tax for compression of natural gas as manufacturing activity. Learn about the case and its implications.
Rectification of order was not made only on apparent error but issue in rectification of order was mixed question of law and fact that on which date service tax is leviable even Cenvat credit issue also involve a detailed scrutiny.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as investigating officers failed to comply with conditions of section 36B of the Central Excise Act with respect to obtaining certificate prior to relying upon the computer printout. Hence, demand set aside as based on unauthenticated data.
