Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court examined whether a taxpayer’s selection of “No” for personal hearing could override the statutory req...
Goods and Services Tax : The Orissa High Court examined whether tax could be demanded after reversal of the disputed ITC. It held that raising a fresh dema...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed a judgment that held mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal does not amount to valid comm...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court refused to bypass the statutory GST appeal mechanism and directed the taxpayer to pursue appellate remedies. How...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Goods and Services Tax : Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors Vs Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors (Supreme Court of India) The ...
Goods and Services Tax : The 45th meeting of Goods and Services Tax Council (“GST Council”) is scheduled to be held on September 17, 2021. The Ministry...
Custom Duty, Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court in M/s Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14737/2021[T-CUS] issu...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both p...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 7...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 32/2015-Central Excise Dated- 4th June, 2015 Ethanol produced from molasses generated from cane crushed in the ...
Service Tax : Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST Dated the 3rd June, 2015 It is further clarified that exemption from service tax still continues to ser...
Custom Duty : the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the State) from whole of the duty as specified under the First Schedule and whole of...
Excise Duty : Grants exemption from Basic Excise Duty to goods donated or purchased out of cash donations for the relief and rehabilitation of p...
Custom Duty : New posts have been created in the rank of Commissioners of Customs in DRI and DGCEI for adjudication of cases as investigated by ...
Rajan Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) was engaged in the manufacture and export of stainless steel cutlery and utensils (Impugned goods or final products). Since, the Impugned goods were exempted from the payment of the Central Excise Duty vide Notification No.10/2003-CE
In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad passed an order extending waiver of pre-deposit/stay of demand beyond the total period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay, without passing any speaking order.
Samtel Color Ltd. (Assessee) is engaged in manufacturing colour picture tubes falling under Heading No.40.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Some of the picture tubes were found to be defective at the customer’s end and accordingly were returned to the manufacturer
Peri (India) Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) imported old and used pipes declaring them as ‘old and used Prop Pep 20-300’ (Impugned goods) and classified them under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7308 4000. The said classification was accepted and duty was demanded accordingly.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that the matter is no longer res integra as it has been consistently held that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely because some aspects of the procedure had not been followed.
It was held by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai that while the Department had opportunity to verify whatever information/ statements furnished by the Appellant, a copy of the verification report should have been provided to the Appellant to make their submissions/rebuttal.
In the instant case, AP. Engineers (the Assessee) filed a refund claim of Service tax which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority as hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. On appeal being made to the Commissioner (Appeals)
In order to avail Cenvat credit on outward transportation, any service received up to ‘the place of removal’ should qualify as input service under the definition of ‘input service’ as defined in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules). Prior to July 11, 2014, the term, ‘place of removal’ was not […]
(i) In item (i), after the words and sanitation, the words including contribution to the Swach Bharat Kosh set-up by the Central Government for the promotion of sanitation shall be inserted; (ii) In item (iv), after the words and water, the words including contribution to the Clean Ganga Fund set-up by the Central Government for rejuvenation of river Ganga; shall be inserted.
We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi [2014-TIOL-1964-CESTAT-DEL] on the following issue: Issue: Whether the services provided to principals situated outside India to market their products in India is an export of service […]
