Explore the Kanade Anand Udyog vs. CCE Thane case, highlighting the denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods. Detailed analysis and verdict discussed.
CESTAT Mumbai’s ruling in Krishna Consultancy vs. Commissioner of CGST highlights that services to foreign universities are not ‘intermediaries’ and qualify as export of services.
Turner Project Management India Pvt. Ltd wins in CESTAT Mumbai case – No service tax on employer’s social security contributions. Detailed analysis and conclusion here.
CESTAT Mumbai held that in case of premature availment of cenvat credit on capital goods the recovery proceedings under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) would not sustain and only interest liability will arise.
CESTAT Mumbai held that prior to amendment i.e. till 31.03.2008 CENVAT Credit on outward transportation from the ‘place of removal’ is admissible. As entire period of dispute is pre-amendment, CENVAT Credit available and demand unsustainable.
No excise duty was leviable under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the allegation of illicit clearing as the department had miserably failed to substantiate the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance by any tangible or corroborative evidence
Excise duty demand of approximately 24 crores against Volkswagen India was quashed on the amount recovered as liquidated damages on the ground of non-violation of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 and in the event of rejection of the invoice value as transaction value, it was not open to the adjudicating authority to re-determine value without recourse to Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of Hindustan Coca Cola, allowing them a refund and rejecting the concept of unjust enrichment. Learn about the case and its implications.
In this case study, explore the implications of the CESTAT’s ruling that a refund claim for CENVAT credit cannot be denied for failure to justify inability to utilize it
CESTAT Mumbai held that that de novo adjudication order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having been based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
