CESTAT Ahmedabad held that certificate issued by qualified professionals like Cost Accountants cannot be brushed aside merely with the statement that corroborative evidence was not produced. Such certificates are needed to be accepted by the department unless investigation is undertaken in doubtful cases.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that classification under 7204 for ‘used rails’ declared as Heavy Melting Scrap is improper and the product is correctly classifiable under Heading 7302.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposing penalty under rule 209A against the person who is only involved in maintaining the accounts of the company is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
In the case of Amneal Life Sciences Pvt Ltd Vs C.S.T. Service Tax, the CESTAT Ahmedabad granted a service tax refund for the renting of immovable property services. The appellant, a unit in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), sought a refund on the service tax paid for renting their manufacturing premises. The department rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the rent invoices were in the name of a different premises. However, the CESTAT accepted the appellant’s explanation and held that the refund should be allowed since renting of immovable property is an approved taxable service. The CESTAT also allowed the refund on consulting engineer services and dismissed the objection regarding the filing of declaration forms. Learn more about the case and its implications.
In case of sales commission to overseas commission agent under reverse charge mechanism, the extended time proviso is not invokable.
Apex Court in case of ITC LTD Vs. CCE, Kolkata held that self assessment orders are also assessment orders and are appealable just like other orders, like re-assessment orders.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of declared value in terms of rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 solely on the basis of various letters of different authorities without examining contemporaneous NIDB data is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Ahmedabad’s verdict on customs valuation rules regarding Kumar Impex’s appeal against reassessment of imported goods’ value under Rule 12.
Decorative Sleeves Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Notification No. 14/2004-ST exempts production of goods on behalf of client and any service incidental or ancillary to production of goods. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellants are printing on PVC material supplied by their clients. Printing may or […]
Vrl Logistics Ltd Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad) No post import condition in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. – CESTAT quashes Tax & Penalty demand, confiscation of aircrafts not sustainable We find that the issue in the present matters relates to the grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3- 2002 as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus. […]
