Commissioner of Central Tax Vs MeritTrac Services Private Limited (CESTAT Bangalore) CESTAT Bangalore held that activity of carrying out the exams for university cannot be construed as rendering of ‘Management or Business Service’ to the universities without the assessee’s involvement in the execution of the conduct of the examination. Facts- The respondent are engaged in […]
CESTAT Bangalore overrules a penalty against P. J. Johnson & Sons, proving no violation of Section 89, Customs Act. Read our detailed case analysis.
CESTAT Bangalore held that with effect from 01.03.2005 branded jewellery are chargeable to excise duty @2%. However, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of establishment of allegation of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty.
The CESTAT Bangalore has ruled that the Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology (CMLRE) is eligible for customs duty exemption on the import of spares and other items for vessel repair.
CESTAT Bangalore has upheld the decision to revoke the suspension of Bon Freight’s CHA license, due to lack of conclusive evidence pointing towards their involvement in irregularities.
Delve into CESTAT Bangalore’s decision in Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, where the tribunal quashed the original classification of ‘Line Extender’ as a Broadcast Signal Amplifier.
CESTAT Bangalore held that value of free physician samples should be done as per rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Valuation under rule 8 of the 2000 Rules by adding 15% profit to the cost of manufacture not acceptable.
Explore the recent case verdict by CESTAT Bangalore regarding K Kiran Tyres Vs Commissioner of Customs, focusing on the confiscation of illegally imported goods without a valid license.
Analysis of the CESTAT Bangalore order in the case of DLF Southern Towns Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs where violation of import policy led to confiscation and penalty.
CESTAT Bangalore held that allegation of the department that the quantity of goods as shown in the purchase invoices were brought into the factory, processed, converted into finished goods and removed clandestinely without payment of duty are not supported with sufficient evidence are liable to be set aside.
