CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to SEZ units are exempt from service tax vide notification no. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. Exemption benefit cannot be denied for procedural requirement.
In a tax dispute involving Metro Engineers, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a remand for reevaluation of service tax demands. The case highlights issues of differential service tax on various services and the potential misuse of penalty provisions.
In a tax dispute with Baroda Rayon Corporation, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a fresh review due to the legal status of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This case raises critical questions regarding the interpretation and application of taxation laws.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that decision conveying denial of exemption under DFIA Scheme is challengeable by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Denial of exemption is not merely a query but the decision of assessing officer and hence appeal can be preferred against the same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad, in case of Khushi Enterprise vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Daman, has upheld the right to a service tax refund on export of goods, emphasizing that an invoice to an agent is just as valid as an invoice to principal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad set a precedent in Hussain Sheth Ispat Vs Commissioner of Customs, ruling that Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) is not relevant to the assessable value of goods, nullifying the differential duty demand.
Read the analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad order regarding the absence of evidence of excise duty inclusion in the price charged from buyers. Learn how the CESTAT granted the benefit of cum-duty price and remanded the case for re-quantification of duty demand and penalties.
An exploration of the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Vs Galaxy Diesel, focusing on the demand for exempted service despite Cenvat Credit repayment.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as appellant is not a service recipient, service tax cannot be demanded from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) in case of bank charges paid by Indian Bank to Foreign Bank and reimbursed from the appellant.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Granite Slabs is correctly classified under 21561200 and not under 68022390. Accordingly, the demand on this count is not sustainable hence, the same is set aside.
