CESTAT held that for extended limitation period to apply, department must establish elements such as suppression or fraud. Since no such allegations were made in notices, extended period could not be invoked.
Understand the CESTAT Mumbai order on absence of speaking order under Section 17(5) of Customs Act. Detailed analysis, implications, and conclusion.
Explore CESTAT Mumbai’s order on IBM India vs Commissioner of Customs, disputing classification of Optical Transceivers under Customs Tariff Item 8517 6290 for duty exemptions.
CESTAT Mumbai rules trade discount to bulk buyer of CNG not liable for excise duty. Detailed analysis of Mahanagar Gas Ltd. vs Commissioner case.
Compelling imperative consequent upon contradictory reports cannot be ignored. For central excise authorities to assume antipodal positions is neither becoming nor legally proper
CESTAT Mumbai remands Michigan Engineers Pvt Ltd’s case for re-adjudication, questioning service classification and subcontractor’s role in taxable services.
CESTAT Mumbai: Saf Yesat Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – penalties deemed jurisdictionally void for issuing second SCN without adjudicating first.
CESTAT Mumbai rules in favor of Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., stating no confiscation if prior permission taken for storage of non-bonded goods in bonded warehouse. Detailed analysis of the case provided.
The CESTAT Mumbai allows the appeal in the case of Reliable Automotive Private Limited versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, setting aside demands and penalties. Get insights into the legal proceedings and conclusions.
Detailed analysis of CENVAT credit eligibility for electricity transferred to sister unit free of cost. Learn from the CESTAT Mumbai order on Finolex Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner.
