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.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Grauer & Weil India Limited in a case against Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. The article discusses the eligibility of Metal Finishing Chemicals and Electroplating Salts for exemption under Notification No. 10/1997-CE.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules no service tax leviable on VAT-subjected vehicle sales, in Jivan Jyot Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST.
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.
