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 Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that for no reason, the Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount of the Appellants for more than 2 years after passing of the Order. Further, the Revenue neither filed an appeal against the Order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the Appellants that the legitimate claim of the Appellants has not been granted.
In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide its Order dated April 30, 2013 directed the Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (the Appellant) to make pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on July 15, 2013.
In the instant case, Jubiliant Engineering (the Appellant) was 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) engaged in manufacturing of valve assemblies falling under the Chapter 8481 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Though the Appellant was not required to pay duty on the export goods
In the present case, Tata Chemicals Ltd. (the Appellant) filed eleven Refund claims amounting to Rs. 1,26,78,767/- during the period September 1997 to December 1999. However, the Refund claims were initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
Suncity Art Exporters (the Appellant) were exporters of handicrafts and were entitled to Refund of Service tax paid on the various specified input services in terms of Notification No. 17/09-ST dated July 7, 2009.
Sunrise Enterprise (the Appellant) imported Global Star Brand Tyres, Tubes and Flaps (imported goods) falling under Chapter 40 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the Customs Tariff Act) from Peoples Republic of China and Thailand and filed 3 Bills of Entries, one dated July 11,2007 and two dated July 12,2007.
Since there was no evidence of higher value of contemporaneous import from same sources and no allegation of mis-declaration of impugned goods, declared value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data. In the present case, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules cannot be invoked.
When the clearances were not on sale but were purely on stock transfer basis, there is no question of Satnoor unit having recovered the incidence of duty from Abu Road unit and, as such, the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply.
In the instant case, an Order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Goa confirming Service tax liability on Kala Mines and Minerals (the Appellant). Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai by making a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service tax demand confirmed in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act).
In the instant case, the three Appellants namely Matunga Gymkhana, Tahnee Heights Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. and Mittal Tower Premises Co-Operative Society (the Appellants) were running a club for their members.
