Sunrise Immigration Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST- Chandigarh (CESTAT Chandigarh) The facts of the case are not in dispute that a dispute between the appellant and the revenue was going on whether they were liable to pay service tax on their activity or not on export of services for the prior period. The […]
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Bansal Steel Power Limited vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Rohtak, highlighting the flawed investigation leading to the denial of credit on returned goods. Uncover crucial insights for businesses dealing with similar issues.
Redemption fine & penalty imposed by Revenue Department without final assessment is not permissible The Hon’ble CESTAT Chandigarh in matter of M/s J.S. Steel Traders v. the Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana [Custom Appeal No. 60037 of 2021, Final Order No. 60840/2021 dated May 24, 2021] set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department, imposing […]
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST on the timeliness of a refund claim post-GST regime changes. Insightful analysis for businesses navigating GST transitions.
Whether the time limit prescribed for filing refund claim of SAD paid by the importer is one year in terms of Notification No. 93/2008(Cus) dated 01.08.2008 which has been issued in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without selling the imported goods by the importer within one year of payment of SAD shall be applicable or not needs to be referred to the Larger Bench of Tribunal.
Discover the implications of Section 1(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case of Seville Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. Uncover why the CESTAT Chandigarh sets aside the penalty imposed on an appellant located outside India.
Chandigarh CESTAT ruling in Maharaja Crane Services vs. Commissioner of CGST – Applicability of Limitation Act to service tax matters. Legal insights on demand beyond the five-year limit.
Explore the CESTAT Chandigarh order in Manavi Exim Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. Learn about the implications of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act on re-assessment and the importance of a speaking order.
Initially, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim holding that the appellant has not contested the service tax liability, therefore, the refund claim of service tax paid is not admissible.
Kandhari Beverages P Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Chandigarh) In the case before High Court, the advertisement expenses were incurred by Coca Cola India and High Court had held that expenses towards advertisement services are part of the cost incurred for production of the finished product, and hence these services are to be treated as input […]
