CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘interface card’ is classifiable under customs tariff it 8517 7010 and not under customs tariff item 8517 6290. Accordingly, demand of differential duty set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of benefit of notification no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July 2004 owing to reversal of CENVAT Credit needs to be examined by lower authorities. Accordingly, matter restored back to original authority for fresh determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held that as differential duty was paid with interest on expiry of export obligation period, there is no violation of the conditions of Advance License under Notification no. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11.09.2009 and hence redemption fine and penalty set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for availment of entire amount of credit of input services even though certain portion must have been used in manufacture of exempted goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 [valuation rules] is effected only when inputs are supplied and sale is effected to the buyer by the Principal Manufacturer. Thus, Rule 10A of valuation rules doesn’t come into play for all manner of ‘job-work’.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the catering service provided to the students in the educational institution qualify for service tax exemption as per the notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
CESTAT Mumbai rules redemption fine and customs duty not required when goods are allowed to be re-exported. Detailed analysis of Goyal Trading vs. Commissioner of Customs case.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rendering a decision on goods that are yet to be provisionally assessed would be a premature intervention. The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods.
Discover the key details of Rama Colour Prints vs. Commissioner of Service Tax case, highlighting disclosure in ST-3 returns and limitation issues.
CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in Arcelor Mittal case, classifying procuring sales orders for foreign steel mills serving customers in India as an export of service, leading to the quashing of a service tax demand.
