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...
Excise Duty : Explore the Daurala Sugar Works vs. Commissioner of Central GST case, focusing on bagasse's non-dutiable status and CENVAT credit ...
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 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 ...
Advancing reasons for non-payment of service tax even though collected, it has been submitted by the appellant that during the relevant period, they were under severe financial crisis. In my view, this cannot be a reasonable cause for non-payment of service tax even though collected from the customers but not deposited with the Government.
Rule 3(7)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) applies only the duty has been paid at the concessional rate prescribed in Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31/03/2003.
Appellants are not the manufacturer of Aluminium scrap and they have only imported the scrap for manufacture of Aluminium ingots.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held liable for mis-declaration as Bill of Entry (BOE) was filed by the Customs Broker based on the documents given by the importer and there is no evidence brought on record to show that the Customs Broker was aware of the misdeclaration.
CESTAT Chennai held that relevant date of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in case of export of service is the date of realization of the foreign exchange.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejecting exemption benefit and duty demand u/s 28 of Customs Act, 1962 by reassessing ‘cameras’ under general and residual description i.e. ‘others’ under 8525 8090 instead of declared specified classification i.e. 8525 8020 is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that handling of export cargo is excluded from the purview of service tax. The same is not exempted service. In nut-shell, any activity on which no service tax is payable doesn’t make such activity an exempted service.
CESTAT Mumbai held that there is no breach of regulation 11(m) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) as the licence is sub-let and two employees of sub-let owner failed to dealt with export consignment.
CESTAT Chennai held that net quantity after adjusting the gain and loss has to be taken for demand of duty in case of petroleum products.
CESTAT Chennai held that service receiver (appellant) not liable to pay service tax invoking provisions of section 66A of the Finance Act under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) as inspection service is performed in India.
