Service Tax : CESTAT rules that affiliation fees collected by universities are statutory functions, not taxable services. Service tax demand and...
CA, CS, CMA : A summary of key updates for Income Tax, GST, RBI, and legal matters issued from April 7-13, 2025, including exemptions, tax forms...
Service Tax : Understand the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Vishal Tansukhbhai Gohel vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST. No service tax on freig...
Service Tax : CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling in Shakti Enterprise vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST clarifies that CHA's reimbursable expenses are...
Custom Duty : CESTAT, Allahabad penalizes Commissioner for delaying Tribunal order implementation. Rs. 2,00,000 penalty imposed, and contempt pr...
CA, CS, CMA : CESTAT e-Filing Software User Manual explains about New User Registration, User Home Page Navigation, Filing, (Petition/Appeal) ...
Goods and Services Tax : This is the fourth year since the introduction of GST in July, 2017. Despite a sizeable liquidation of appeals under the Sabka Vis...
Excise Duty : The Union Cabinet today gave its approval for setting up six additional Benches of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate T...
Service Tax : The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has directed JetLite (formerly Sahara Airlines Ltd) to pay Rs 100 crore (Rs 1...
Excise Duty : RECENTLY the President of India was pleased to discharge Hon'ble member of the CESTAT Mr. PK Das, just a day before he was to comp...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chennai held that reimbursable expenses recovered on an actual basis could not be included in taxable value for periods pri...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chennai held that credits relating to renovation, sales promotion, testing services, vehicle-related expenses, and similar ...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input se...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Chennai held that unsigned invoices, unauthenticated e-mails, and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to reject tra...
Custom Duty : The Tribunal held that a medicine containing Ergotamine was merely a preparation and not “Ergotamine and its salts” under Sche...
Custom Duty : Read Notification No. 02/2023 from CESTAT, New Delhi, introducing virtual hearings. Learn about the procedure, technical requireme...
Goods and Services Tax : Applications are being invited for 2 anticipated vacancies of Member (Technical) and 4 anticipated vacancies of Member (Judicial) ...
CA, CS, CMA : Representations have been received from the Bar Associations requesting for physical hearing of appeals. As there is improvement i...
Custom Duty : F No. 01(05)/Circular/CESTAT/2021 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-11006...
Goods and Services Tax : Representations have been received from the Bar Associations at Mumbai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh and Hyderabad Benches of ...
CESTAT Kolkata rules in Vedanta Ltd. case: CRCL’s delayed test report after 218 days invalidates export duty assessment, favoring refund claim for iron ore exports.
He observed that appellant furnished fake and bogus bills of purchase from purported buyers other than actual suppliers in connection with the export of overvalued goods to claim ineligible drawback.
CESTAT Kolkata rules in favor of Samudera Shipping, stating export occurred with LEO clearance, deleting Rs. 2,00,000 penalty imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act.
Goods (tyres) imported by assessee was without any BIS markings being in violation of the statutory provisions were not permissible to be imported, and hence they were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.
As goods were cleared on the bill of entry of the appellant, hence it was made a party by the department. Differential custom duty was demanded jointly and severally from BGH and appellant.
CESTAT Kolkata rules Vedanta Ltd. entitled to 12% interest for 15-year delay in export duty refund due to delayed finalization of shipping bills by Paradeep Customs.
Matter relates to refund of duty paid consequent to re-classification of the aircraft parts imported. Commissioner’s (Appeals) rejected the appeals by holding that appellant did not deposit 7.5% of the duty or penalty disputed as per section 129 E of the customs act.
Refund of Extra Duty Deposit ( EDD ) was not subject to the limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and should be returned upon finalization of provisional assessments without requiring a formal refund claim.
Failure to file a transshipment bill was deemed a technical lapse and it did not invalidate the clearance granted by customs. . Tribunal held that imposing duty demands and penalties in this matter lacked merit and legal basis.
Any orders passed beyond Tribunal’s vested powers would be non-est in law (invalid) and that these appeals had become infructuous due to the resolution plan’s approval, with no further issues for adjudication.
