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 ...
The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the value of items supplied free of cost by service recipient to the appellant have to be included in the value of mining services provided by the appellant.
Service rendered by Tata Sons Ltd. under BEBP agreement between Tata Steel Ltd. and Tata Sons Ltd. was eligible as ‘input service’ for TSL and the service tax paid was available as cenvat credit to TSL under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In the instant case, the reinsurance services availed by the Appellant are for insuring its business risks and not in respect of any particular motor vehicle. Reinsurance, by its nature, pertains to the insurance of business of the Appellant.
The goods imported by assessee, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon etc., which they described as ‘carbonated beverage with fruit juice’ were neither carbonated beverage alone nor fruit juice alone gave the essential character of the products in question; both contribute to its essential character. The issue could not be resolved as per Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation and therefore resort was to be made to Rule 3(c). Since Customs tariff heading (CTH) 22029920 came last in the order, it prevails and the goods were classifiable under this heading.
Target Corporation India Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTA Bangalore) Definition of ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency’ seeks to bring under its ambit, two types of activities i.e. recruitment of manpower and supply of manpower and further the service becomes the taxable service only if provided by a manpower recruitment or supply agency but in the […]
Asalam Khan Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Appellant had brought a small quantity of 233.00 gms. of gold in the shape of 20 disc (about 11.66 gm. per disc) for personal use. Further, I find that there is no commercial quantity either of gold or cigarettes. Further I find that the […]
Assessee was justified in claiming exemption of integrated tax under the General Exemption Notification No. 45/2017 dated June 30, 20173, as amended by Corrigendum Notification dated July 22, 2017 on re-import of repaired parts/ aircrafts into India during the period from August, 2017 to March, 2019
All the services related to transmission and distribution of electricity were bundled services, as contemplated under section 66F(3) of the Finance Act, and were required to be treated as a provision of a single service of transmission and distribution of electricity, which service was exempted from payment of service tax. Thus, it was not possible to sustain the levy of service tax on the amount collected by assessee for late payment surcharge, meter rent and supervision charges.
Setwin Shipping Agency Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Looking into the circumstances of the case where the custom Broker prima facie has some documents; the person who handed over the documents to the Broker is available; it is not alleged that the exporters were fictitious and the fraudulent persons used the high security IDs […]
Hanil Automotive India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs-III (CESTAT Chennai) The CESTAT Chennai has held that the declared prices cannot be reviewed without any evidence to the effect that the relation between the appellant and the foreign supplier has influenced the declared price or to the effect that there was a flow back of money […]
