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.
Krishna Traders Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Hyderabad): Transaction value cannot be rejected on mere assumption/presumption and against provisions of Section 14 of Customs Act read with Rule 8 of Valuation rules
Explore the CESTAT Hyderabad decision directing the release of gold bars seized as smuggled goods in Mitta Sunil Kumar vs Commissioner of Customs case. Learn about the legal arguments and outcome.
Find out why RCM applicable only when service is provided to ‘business entity registered as body corporate’ is key to understanding the full CESTAT Hyderabad order from 2016-2017. Learn the facts now!
CESTAT Hyderabad rules that no service tax is payable on electricity and water supplied to tenants by GMR Hyderabad Airport, citing government exemptions.
CESTAT Hyderabad rules that government tax claims are extinguished upon NCLT’s approval of a resolution plan, settling all disputes.
CESTAT Hyderabad’s ruling on CENVAT credit reversal for a polyester spun yarn manufacturer and the use of Rule 6(3) in central excise regulations.
CESTAT Hyderabad lowers penalty for discrepancies in import declaration due to negligence, in absence of ulterior motive. Detailed analysis of the case.
