Analysis of the CESTAT Chennai order in Axon Drugs (P) Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise case. Discover why directing excise refund to Consumer Welfare Fund was deemed unjust.
CESTAT held that when there is doubt regarding documents, authority should seek clarification/explanation rather than relying on assumptions.
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of penalty unwarranted as differential duty is already paid before issuance of show cause notice.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount already paid towards the duty liability and interest before issuance of show cause notice. Notice issued only for levying penalty is untenable. Hence, levy of penalty u/s. 78 deleted.
Explore the crucial legal battle between Arasan Amuthan Construction and the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. Understand why no service tax is due on pre-2007 contracts according to CESTAT Chennai.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as CHA has abetted or facilitated, may be deliberate or negligent, an illegal attempted export of prohibited goods i.e. Red Sanders wood pillars and tops.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable on person who causes to be made, signed or used any false declaration or fraudulent document
CESTAT Chennai supports Fourrts India Laboratories, ruling that physician samples fall under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Dive into the details of this landmark decision.
Detailed analysis of Beach Minerals Company’s appeal against Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ruling. CESTAT Chennai orders fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Chennai held that tendering of an order to an unauthorized person or sending it without ‘registered post with acknowledgement due’ is not considered as a valid service of order. Accordingly, matter disposed of by way of remand.
