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 ...
Circuit Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) imported Glass Epoxy Copper and filed 5 Bills of Entry for the period October 2003 to January 2004 (Impugned period). During the Impugned period, the Anti-Dumping Duty was payable by the Appellant provisionally in terms of the Notification No. 141/2003 dated September 19, 2003 (the Notification).
a. No Dismissal for Non-Prosecution- In Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills Versus Commissioner Of C.Ex. & Customs reported in 2014(310) E.L.T 209 (SC), the Honourable Apex Court referred to Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedures) Rules ,1982 and Section 35C of CEA,1944 and held that Tribunal can only pass order on appeal confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may remand the matter
hermax Ltd. (the Appellant) had cleared certain inputs to its job workers as per the procedure laid down under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules) for manufacture of intermediate goods.
Sapna Packaging Industries (the Appellant) received an Order-In-Original on August 17, 2013 and preferred an appeal against the said order before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on November 18, 2013.The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground of being
In the instant case, the Department preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that deemed exports and exports are not different.
Shri Rauf Bombaywala (the Appellant) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against Order-in-Original No. 01/2014-15 dated May 7, 2014 vide which penalty of Rs.1.17 crore was imposed on the Appellant.
In the instant case, Zim Laboratories Ltd.(the Appellant) filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (the Impugned Order). Accordingly, the Appellant was required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax/ penalty
Jubilant Organosys Ltd. (the Appellant) adjusted excess payment of Service tax paid in some months against tax payable in following months and contended that adjustment was valid. However, the Appellant also filed refund claims of the excess payment of Service tax for dealing with the situation if adjustment is not allowed.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai also relied upon the AIA case and held that even though Notification No. 102 requires refund claim to be filed with the jurisdictional Customs Authorities, but when the original application for refund was filed within time, though before wrong authority, it cannot be said that the said application was barred by limitation.
A.G. Enterprise (the Appellant) are ship breakers, who imported old and used ships for purpose of breaking up. At the time of ship breaking, the ships/ vessels contained Marine Gas Oil (HSD) [MGO (HSD)] in the tanks of the vessel in addition to the MGO (HSD) lying in the tank of the ship engine.
