Dive into the CESTAT Chennai case of S. Thiagarajan vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise. Explore how the penalty under Section 78 cannot be sustained on a tax demand with retrospective amendments.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai order in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise regarding CENVAT credit on capital goods in a Marine Terminal Facility (MTF).
CESTAT Chennai held that the activity of fitting the power lens into the frames is merely results in assembly and hence the same doesn’t amount to manufacture. Accordingly, duty demand unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount received for land reclamation and soil stabilization in the nature of site formation service provided in the course of construction of port is exempt from service tax vide notification 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005.
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand for paying an amount of 5% /10% /6% on the value of exempted clearances unwarranted when the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit of inputs used in manufacture of exempted products.
CESTAT Chennai held that appellant being religious body is liable to pay service tax for renting of immovable property only from 01.07.2012 and not before that date.
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of redemption fine and penalties when goods were provisionally released, reprocessed and exported after re-processing is unjustified and hence liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that the amount of damages received for tolerating the breach of contract by contractors and sub-contractors is not consideration. Any amount, which is not a consideration for provision of service, cannot be subjected to service tax.
CESTAT Chennai’s order in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) rules that liquidated damages are not liable to service tax. Explore the detailed analysis.
Learn why CESTAT Chennai ruled that appeals before the tribunal abate once the NCLT approves a Resolution Plan. Explore the case of Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.
