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 ...
In the instant case, Jyotsana D. Patel (the Appellant) purchased a residential unit from a builder, on which the builder had collected Service tax and deposited the same with the Department. As there is no levy of Service tax on residential unit as held by the Hon’ble High Court
Ortiker India P. Ltd. (the Appellant or the Company) imported clamps from the related supplier outside India. The transactions were examined on arms length basis and the SVB branch vide order dated February 6, 2009 held that the transaction value has not been influenced
The Revenue alleged that the exemption availed was wrong as the impugned goods were not classifiable under Chapter heading specified in the Exemption Notification. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the Appellant demanding differential Customs duty of Rs. 1,48,92,523/-.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai after considering the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 and relying upon the decision in the case of Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2006 (204) ELT 403] held that since the toothpaste were supplied as ‘free sample’ and were not meant for retail sale, the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977 would not apply at all and, therefore, the provisions of Section 4A of the Excise Act would also not apply.
1. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai vs Maersk Global Service Centre (I) Pvt. Ltd (TS-260-HC2014 (BOM)-TP), the revenue was in appeal before the Bombay High Court, questioning the orders both of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The burden of the revenue’s song was that, in view of […]
CESTAT, Delhi held that detection of short payment by the officers prior to filing of ST-3 is a premature detection. The Appellant has given a plausible explanation of short payment by submitting that inasmuch as entries were not made in the computers and the data was yet to be entered, there was no mala fide on their part not to pay Service tax
In the instant case, Internet Computer Centre (the Appellant) availed the benefit of Small Scale Exemption under erstwhile Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated March 1, 2005 (SSI Notification) which was denied by the Lower Authorities on the ground that the services rendered
Kapoor Glass (I) Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) cleared the goods from the factory to their customers and recovered cost of insurance from them. In the lorry receipts, the freight was on to pay basis and the buyer of the goods were shown as the consignee.
In the instant case, Sankhla Udyog (the Appellant) was engaged in rendering Repairs and Maintenance Services. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant by invoking the extended period alleging that there was a difference between the amount shown in their ledger and in the Service Tax Returns (ST-3) on which the Appellant had not paid Service tax and the same was liable to be recovered along with interest and penalty.
Even after amendment made in the definition of ‘Input services’ w.e.f April 1, 2011, Cenvat credit on Outdoor Catering services used in relation to business activities continues to be eligible when the cost is borne by the Company and not recovered from the employees.
