Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad order on the determination of Cenvat Credit for SS Pipes, Valves, and more. The matter is remanded for reconsideration based on new judgments.
Analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad case between Qumruzzama Khan & C.C.E & S.T.-Vapi regarding penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Read the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on interest for excise duty refund. Find out when the interest starts and its duration in the case of Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd.
The appellants are cable operator and providing cable services to the subscribers on the basis of signals received from the MSO. The subscriber has not asked for any brand for providing the said services.
CESTAT held that effluent does not qualify to be a ‘good’ as per Sales of Goods Act, 1930 and as per definition of GTA only transportation of ‘goods’ is covered under GTA service. Thus, transportation of effluent by GTA is out from ambit of service tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that location from where the service is provided is immaterial for availing the Cenvat credit on input services.
Read about the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot in CESTAT Ahmedabad, where discrepancies between the SCN and adjudication order lead to a re-adjudication process.
Delve into CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in Kalpataru Transmission Ltd vs C.C.-Mundra, a case concerning penalties and goods misdeclaration accusations.
CESTAT pointed out that as the department had accepted the payment of service tax on output service, denying the CENVAT credit on input services, used for providing output service, was unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad directs re-adjudication in the case of Senor Metals Pvt Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. The article discusses the demand of customs duty confirmed for manufacturing dutiable goods on job work basis without disclosing verification report.
