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.
Discover the legal proceedings in the case of M/s Sainath Clearing Agency, where the CESTAT Mumbai revokes a customs broker license and imposes a penalty, offering insights into the disciplinary actions against customs brokers
Read about the CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Jindal Saw Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, where confiscation of ‘Plate Leveler’ parts was quashed.
Read about CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, where findings of SVB were not considered binding.
CESTAT Mumbai criticizes Customs Department for confiscating immovable property without notice, compromising the integrity of the adjudication process. Details of the case explained.
CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in the IL & FS Transportation case, where it quashed a service tax demand due to failure to establish a violation of conditions under Rule 6.
Dive into the Jammas Food Supplier vs. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax case. CESTAT Mumbai clarifies service tax applicability to outdoor caterers.
CESTAT Mumbai remands the matter in the Sunder’s International vs. Commissioner of Customs case, questioning piecemeal adjudication and MRP determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held the penalty u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposable as appellant being custodian of Container Freight Station not only failed to fulfil the conditions and to abide by the responsibilities reposed on them as Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) by assisting in illegal removal of seized red sanders.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported rough diamonds unjustified as if the Kimberly Process Certification was suspected to be faulty the verification should have been initiated with issuing authority.
