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...
Service Tax : Dive into the legal battle over corporate guarantees' taxability as Business Auxiliary Service. Explore the CESTAT's decision, the...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Bangalore's ruling in case of Rafeek K.T. v. Commissioner of Customs, emphasizing need for substantial evidence to impose p...
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...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Kolkata quashes confiscation of plastic scrap from Nepal due to lack of evidence. Read the detailed analysis and outcome of...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Mumbai ruling on USMS Saffron Co Inc vs Commissioner of Customs, quashing duty demand for 'saffron' misuse as food flavour ...
Custom Duty : Explore the CESTAT Allahabad order on Ratan Textiles Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, discussing the absence of a time limit un...
Custom Duty : Read the detailed analysis of CESTAT Kolkata's decision to quash penalties under Customs Act Section 112(b)(ii) due to lack of evi...
Custom Duty : Read the detailed analysis of Ravindra Soni vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) case by CESTAT Kolkata. Understand why gold co...
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 ...
Get insights into the recent CESTAT decision on service tax refund for services consumed outside India. Explore the case of M/s. Aegis Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I, where the tribunal ruled that services consumed abroad are beyond the scope of service tax, warranting a refund of erroneously paid taxes.
CESTAT Kolkata decision in Om India Trading Company Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise case, upheld the rejection of a service tax refund claim filed beyond stipulated time limit under Section 11B of Central Excise Act.
Unravel the complexity of the case between Amadeus Software Labs India Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore), involving ambiguity over the jurisdiction for a second appeal in tax rebate matters.
CESTAT overturned the order that had previously confirmed the demand on expenses such as deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, and DO charges. These expenses were initially collected by the assessee from their clients and then paid to the service provider.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as work orders involves both supply of material as well as service, the same is classifiable under works contract service and not under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that job worker is the one who works upon the goods supplied directly or indirectly by the principal manufacturer. In absence of the said supply, appellants do not fit into the definition of ‘job worker’. Hence, demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that for the purpose of sub heading 27101920, the “light oils and preparations” are those of which 90% or more by volume (including losses) distil at 210 degree Celsius. Goods not meeting the requirements as specified under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 cannot be classified under CTH 27101920.
CESTAT Delhi held that no service tax is payable as the assessee did not receive any consideration for providing a corporate guarantee.
CESTAT Kolkata upholds that Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO) is not liable to pay service tax on administrative charges in the absence of service provider-recipient relationship and consideration.
A comprehensive review of the case National Building Construction Corporation Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, exploring the impact of the correct classification under Section 65(105)(zzd) for construction contracts.
