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...
Service Tax : CESTAT Delhi held that granting “call option” is not an activity of rendering service. Thus, appellant has wrongly been held t...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty and revocation of customs broker license justified as customs broker abetted the ille...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Chennai rejection of refund claim merely for non-mentioning of period particulars in CA’s certificate unjustifiable as re...
Service Tax : Oceanic Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner or Central Excise And Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh) CESTAT Chandigarh held that Indi...
Service Tax : Held that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions for treating the service as export of service but there is a need to veri...
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 ...
Admittedly the appellant’s product is not in conformation to BIS standard as specified in notification. They have not obtained any ISI certificate. Therefore, exemption of SSI notification 08/2003-CE as amended, is not admissible to appellant
B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Appellant manufactures silos for storage of food grains. Custom made silos based on purchase orders placed by customers. It classified under chapter heading 84379090. Revenue contended it is a “prefabricated building” falling under chapter heading 94060099. Show cause notices were issued and […]
CESTAT Delhi held that as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Value of Imported goods) 2007 the value shall be the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. If such a value is not found, then as per Rule 5 the value shall then be the value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Only if neither is available, Rules 7 can be resorted to.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the office memorandum for reconsideration of recommendation made by designated authority for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
Rajesh Kumar Narula Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) CESTAT find that there is no dispute about the fact that the period involved in the present case is 2004-05. The offence of issuing bogus LR can at the most fall under the provision of Rule 26(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the said provision […]
If appellant have not availed Cenvat credit in respect of input service used in exempted goods and if at all the same is availed and subsequently reversed proportionate credit, the assessee is not required to pay 5%/ 10%.
Cenvat credit eligible in respect of Cement, TMT bars, MS angles, channels, beams, racks, plates, etc. used for making foundation of machineries installed in the factory premises and also for making structures for support of the plant.
CESTAT held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on Accordingly refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty of only 25% and not 100% leviable as duty along with interest and 25% penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of Order-in-Original.
