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.
Discover the CESTAT Mumbai decision in the I Gate Global Solutions Ltd. case. Learn why rebate claims for exported services require a clear correlation with FIRC.
CESTAT Mumbai upholds the rejection of a service tax refund claim by RJB Estate Pvt. Ltd. Find out why the claim was denied and the legal reasoning behind it
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) can only be made applicable against the manufacturer/service provider or the person who availed the allegedly inadmissible credit and accordingly recovery of CENVAT Credit against Input Service Distributor unsustainable.
