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 ...
Moser Baer India Ltd.(the Appellant) is the manufacturer of CDR, CD Rom, DVDR and DVD Rom, falling under Chapter Heading 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, at their factory situated at Noida. The Head Office of the Appellant, located at Okhla, Delhi is registered as an Input Service Distributer (ISD) in terms of Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules).
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was rendering Customer care services to the customers of CDMA mobile phone in India on behalf of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Korea (Samsung Korea).
JBF Industries (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Chips, Lump Waste, and Polymer Waste falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing Cenvat Credit on Inputs, Capital goods and Input services in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules
he Appellant was engaged in the business of manufacture of P.U. foam sheets and availing the benefit of Cenvat credit. The Appellant had procured blocks of P.U. foam covered under Chapter Heading No. 3920 or 3921 and cut them into different sizes &shapes and the final product P.U.
Shri Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod (the Appellant) rented out their premises to M/s Loot India Pvt. Ltd. Renting of immovable property was brought under the Service tax net under erstwhile Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) w.e.f. June 1, 2007.
Dev International (the Appellant) imported certain goods (impugned goods) and filed two Bills of Entry, both dated July 17,2008 wherein 4% SAD, amounting to Rs.1,11,556.90 was paid. The impugned goods were detained by Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) for investigation.
Jai Mahal Hotels (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into a joint venture agreement dated August 28, 1985 with Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) for running hotel business at immovable property owned by the Appellant.
Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai held that in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, the conversion is possible on the documents in existence at the time of export. The shipping bills in the instant case were supported by a certificate from the Chartered Engineer, which was endorsed with the export particulars.
In the instant case, in the earlier round of proceedings, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai remanded the matter by an order dated August 11, 2009 and in remand proceedings, the First Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty imposed on John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) without issuing any Show Cause Notice.
eturned goods have to be treated as Inputs and the Assessee having shown the issuance of the said Inputs from their RG-1 are deemed to have manufactured final product – Reversal of Cenvat credit cannot be sought
