Uncover the critical implications of the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s landmark ruling, where a retired partner was found not liable for the excise duty dues of his former firm.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Savita Oil Technologies, allowing the refund of excess excise duty paid due to quantity discounts given to customers.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Goyal & Co Construction, stating service tax demand cannot be confirmed without mentioning it in the show cause notice.
CESTAT ruling discusses whether clearance of iron and steel scrap from imported brass can be treated as removal of inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Vikram Plasticizers, granting them customs duty exemption for their chemically modified HDPE, as it maintains its character.
In the case of Welspun Corp Ltd vs. C.C.-Mundra, CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that a minor increase or decrease in weight compared to import invoices, calculated based on theoretical weight, is allowable. The tribunal cited a previous judgment in favor of the appellant and set aside the demand for enhanced valuation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that any amount deposited during pendency of adjudication proceeding or investigation is in the nature of pre-deposit and principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the proprietorship firm without even recording the statement of the proprietor of the firm is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services of transportation of goods by a person other than GTA are clearly exempt under Section 66D (P)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on the Jindal Fibres Vs C.C.-Kandla case, regarding penalties for misdeclared goods under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Understand the implications for companies operating within SEZs.
