Uncover Pakona Engineers’ victorious battle against the Commissioner of Central Excise. Service provided by foreign entities not liable for service tax.
An in-depth analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on whether excess freight charges should be included in transaction value for calculating excise duty.
Understand CESTAT’s decision in Panoli Enviro Technology Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST that effluent transportation doesn’t qualify as ‘goods’ under the Goods Transport Agency service, hence is not liable to Service Tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that a sanctioned refund claim can be adjusted to any dues of excise duty as per Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. The case involves the appropriation of excess Cenvat credit and penalty amounts from the refund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad upholds the addition of service tax on services provided to shipping lines, classifying them under the category of steamer agent as per Section 65(100) of the Finance Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad reduces the bank guarantee for provisional release of imported dry dates to Rs. 18 lakhs, citing the proportionate value of the goods. The appellant, K.L. International, had sought reconsideration of the original order, arguing that the goods were perishable edible goods and not restricted or prohibited.
In a significant ruling, CESTAT Ahmedabad held that construction of residential complexes for non-commercial organizations like Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation is exempt from service tax.
Delve into the case of Neeraj Sharma vs Commissioner of Customs where CESTAT ruled a secondary adjudication void ab initio due to pre-existing adjudication.
CESTAT Ahmedabad has ruled that construction of residential complexes for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation is not liable for service tax. The impugned order is set aside.
CESTAT held that if assessment of duty payment by supplier has been accepted without objection, it cannot be disputed at recipient’s end for availing Cenvat credit.
