CESTAT Kolkata’s ruling in the case of Commr. of CGST & Central Excise vs. Calcutta Springs Ltd. regarding service tax demand on fabrication works for Indian Railways without corroborative evidence.
CESTAT Kolkata quashes the rejection of a refund claim on Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid for shoe imports, citing non-inclusion of an allegation in the show cause notice.
CESTAT Kolkata case – Mishra & Mishra (Agency) Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs. Learn how CHA licenses cannot be revoked without direct involvement.
CESTAT Kolkata rules on excise duty for physician samples distributed free of cost by medicament manufacturers. Analysis of the case of Parker Robinson Private Limited vs. CCE.
Explore Apeejay Shipping vs. CST (CESTAT Kolkata) case, addressing service tax on ‘Address Commission’ in chartering. Learn legal arguments and CESTAT Kolkata’s favorable ruling.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 leviable as involvement in clandestine manufacture and clearance is well established.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Appellant is merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder. Accordingly, Appellant is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle. Hence, demand of duty unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata’s decision to uphold the enhanced value of customs duty on a multi-function printer based on a chartered engineer’s estimation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that benefit of preferential rate vide Notification 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 not deniable as Certificate of country of origin from Malysia Chamber of Commerce for subsequent import of identical goods afterward submitted.
CESTAT Kolkata held that provisions of rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable when CENVAT Credit attributable to non-excisable goods not availed. Accordingly, demand set aside.
