Explore the Tiffins Barytes vs. Commissioner of CE & ST case at CESTAT Bangalore. Learn about the abatement of appeal and its implications under Rule 22.
CESTAT Bangalore held that web cameras are rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473 and not under 8525 as web cameras are not digital camera nor it can be considered as a television camera.
Explore the implications of the National Company Law Tribunal’s resolution plan approval on the CESTAT Bangalore’s jurisdiction in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs.
CESTAT Bangalore held that destruction of obsolete goods allowed to EOU on payment of duty on scrap value. Accordingly, held that when goods are destroyed EOU is not liable to pay duty on original value at the time of import.
Explore the Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs case. Learn why the quantity of bulk liquid cargo in the shore tank determines assessable value for customs duty.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore order on Elvina Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Commissioner. Learn about the correct valuation method for physician samples under Central Excise rules.
Once transaction value of goods imported from associated companies are at arm’s length price under Rule 3(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 is accepted, Department cannot load 5% royalty to transaction value under Rule 10(1)(c) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007
Dive into the Commissioner of Customs vs. Kitex Garments case at CESTAT Bangalore, where a dispute over the classification of imported snap fasteners as buttons unfolds.
CESTAT Bangalore held that rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 will be applicable for determination of assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis.
Since raising of finance for day-to-day operations by assessee was squarely covered within the scope of the definition of ‘support service’ and thus assessee was liable to discharge service tax on the Guarantee commission paid to Government of Karnataka or raising funds from the debt market.
