Activity of slitting and cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size does not amount to manufacture as character and end-use did not undergo any change on account of winding, cutting/slitting and packing.
In a landmark decision, CESTAT Hyderabad rules in favor of CISF, stating reimbursements aren’t taxable, citing precedents. Detailed analysis here.
CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 are framed under Central Excise Act, 1944. This Act applies to whole of India but not beyond. When Central Excise Act itself does not extend outside India, neither will CENVAT Credit Rules. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone outside India to avail benefit of CENVAT credit.
The appellant, in a recent case involving the supply of crude oil/gas to ONGC, failed to meet the stipulated event for service completion. Consequently, the obligation to pay service tax was deemed non-applicable.
Analysis of Nano Hospitals Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs case by CESTAT Hyderabad, stating imported medical devices with 5+ years life aren’t hazardous waste.
Explore the detailed analysis of Sh Mohammed Mustafa Vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs case by CESTAT Hyderabad. Learn why intention to smuggle can’t equate to attempt to export.
Learn about Himadri Speciality Chemical Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam (CESTAT Hyderabad) and the implications of invoking extended limitation for IGST demand.
CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that confiscating gold without corroborative evidence is unjust. Learn about the case of Kogatam Sadik Basha Vs Commissioner of Central Tax Preventive.
CESTAT clarifies service tax demands cannot be based solely on ITR or 26AS statements. The department must prove service provision, recipient, and consideration. This decision upholds consistent rulings and protects businesses from unsubstantiated demands.
CESTAT Hyderabad quashes differential duty demand against KRIBHCO, citing lack of evidence for price influence in OMIFCO relationship. Full text of the order.
