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.
CESTAT, Bangalore ruling clarifies LCD panel classification. LCD Panels classified under tariff entry 9013 8010, while parts under 9013 9010.
CESTAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty unsustainable as service tax is demanded due to mis-interpretation of service being classified as joint venture agreement and not a franchisee service.
Insights into the CESTAT Bangalore’s decision to dismiss an appeal by Chakiat Agencies Pvt Ltd, due to the issuance of Discharge Certificates under the SVLDRS.
CESTAT Bangalore modifies penalties in case of import valuation discrepancies. Learn more about the details of Sri Sai Graphics Vs Commissioner of Customs.
Unravel the complexity of the case between Amadeus Software Labs India Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore), involving ambiguity over the jurisdiction for a second appeal in tax rebate matters.
