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 ...
Excess credit reversed by assessee under protest in course of investigation, for which no SCN has been issued, cannot be retained by Department -Refund thereof is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Vs. Finolex Industries Ltd. [2015 (57) Taxman 153 – Mumbai-CESTAT]
Import freight/ charges etc., which are incurred prior to import or which are included in Customs valuation, cannot be charged to Service tax under Cargo Handling or any other service. United Shippers Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II [2015 (57) Taxman 429 – Mumbai-CESTAT]
Method of computation of value U/R 6(3A) of the Credit Rules in respect of Input services used for trading cannot be applied for period prior to April 1,2011 – Value to be calculated on proportionate turnover basis. Synise Technologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2015-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-MUM]
No reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs in case of slump sale of on-going factory along with raw materials, packing materials etc., as there is no removal from factory.
In the instant case, the Hon’ble Tribunal directed Swift Talk (the Appellant) to deposit Rs. 3 Lakhs as pre-deposit for hearing the case on merit by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).The Appellant argued that the Hon’ble Tribunal has adopted discriminatory approach in respect of same controversy and vide its earlier decisions in case of other dealers
In instant case, Monarch Catalyst (P) Ltd. (the Appellant) was engaged in export of goods and for that purpose availing services of certain commission agents located abroad(Impugned services) on which Service tax paid under Reverse Charge. Accordingly the Appellant filed the refund claim under Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated July 7, 2009.
Whether the conditions of export of services under the erstwhile Export of Service Rules, 2005 is satisfied when the payment was received in Indian Rupees through a Foreign Bank, who have issued Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate?
The Commissioner has not taken into consideration the details of processed fabrics received by SCM and AP& Sons and not considered the evidences relied by the department and also white papers bearing the signature of Shri C. Manikandan
1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority is allowed to reassess/ re-quantify the amount of refund claim sanctioned vide the Appellate Order without challenging the same? 2. Whether the Adjudicating Authority is allowed to re-examine the refund claim on new and afresh ground which was neither alleged in SCN, original Adjudicating Order and the Appellate Order?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Barge charges were not includible in the assessable value of imported goods and the amount collected by Revenue as Barge charges needs to be refunded along with interest.
