Learn about CESTAT’s recent ruling in the Aricent Technologies case, which validates the grant of CENVAT credit even when service-exporting premises are not registered under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
ead the full text of the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of Commissioner, Namakkal Municipality Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The case deals with the imposition of penalties and interest on service tax retrospectively. The CESTAT Chennai sets aside the interest and penalties, citing the retrospective amendment and the principle of non-ex post facto penalties.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty not payable as there is no contravention of Valuation Rules as an important part of the machine sold has been replaced with a less advanced component, slight reduction in the value of the machine sold is found to be normal.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund of duty paid under mistake of law cannot be denied when the refund claim is filed within the time prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Unpacking the latest CESTAT Chennai verdict on the PepsiCo India vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise case, exploring how PepsiCo India was granted the benefit of a 1% duty rate on fruit pulp following a reversal of ineligible credit.
A critical review of the case between Graphite India Limited and the Commissioner of Customs, with an emphasis on the significance of adhering to Project Import regulations and the implications of not doing so.
A detailed look at the case of IGP Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, where CESTAT ruled that duty exemption could not be denied due to an initial mismatch.
CESTAT Chennai held that as all the details are furnished based on which permission for DTA clearance was granted. Accordingly, allegation of willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is without any factual basis. Hence demand set aside as time barred.
CESTAT Chennai held that Upgraded Beneficiated Ilmenite are synthetic Rutile and hence classifiable under CTH 2823 and not under 2614.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as department was duly aware about what was being imported and the purpose thereof.
