Explore the analysis of the case Satya Megha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise by CESTAT Kolkata regarding inclusion of transportation charges in assessable value. Understand the implications of FOR contracts and recent CBEC circulars.
Analysis of the CESTAT Kolkata case involving excise duty demand based on differences between balance sheet and ER-1 returns, highlighting the need for substantial evidence.
CESTAT Kolkata grants relief to Tata Motors, quashing denial of CENVAT credit on excise duty due to genuine disclosure of transporters’ copy of invoice.
Read the CESTAT Kolkata order upholding the service tax demand on Mridul Phukan for providing taxable service to ONGC under commercial or industrial construction service.
In present facts of the case, demand of Custom duty was dropped as Bill of Entries were in the name of some different entities but the penalties were confirmed as the Appellant were actively involved in import of the goods and undervalued the same.
CESTAT Kolkata orders re-adjudication in the Surya Coke case against recovery of arrears of Central Excise Duty for 2011-2014. Read the details.
CESTAT Kolkata held that charge of clandestine removal of goods without sufficient, cogent and tangible evidence is unsustainable. In the present case, the Revenue has not brought in any evidence to corroborate the allegation that the Appellant were the actual manufacturers of the cigarettes. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that data collection and analysis, manpower mobilization, liaison, training supervision cannot be classified under ‘Management Consultancy Service’ and hence demand of service tax set aside.
Analysis of Asian Plywood Industries Vs CGST & Excise case where demand of customs duty is quashed due to lack of evidence for clandestine goods removal.
CESTAT orders re-consideration of a case involving Ashoka Re-Rolling Mills Private Ltd, concerning alleged clandestine removal of goods. Discover more here.
