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 ...
Siddhi Vinayak Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2014 (10) TMI 689 – CESTAT MUMBAI] Certain goods belonging to Siddhi Vinayak Steel (the Appellant) and lying at Shreenath Warehouse were seized when the SIIB found that certain goods were illegally imported through Chennai port under DEEC license for local market in Mumbai.
Cenvat credit allowable on Capital goods used initially in the manufacturing of exempted goods but, at time of receipt, the Assessee had intention to use said Capital goods for manufacturing of both dutiable as well as exempted goods
No need to reverse Cenvat credit availed of duty paid on HR coils/sheets for discharging duty on HR slitted and pickled coils on dispute whether slitting and pickling is a manufacturing activity under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Medi Pharma Drug House (the Assessee) obtained a licence to import into India the drug named‘ Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12) BP/USP/IP’ manufactured by North China Pharmaceutical Victor Co. Ltd. of China (North China Company).
Deepak International(the Appellant)imported lighting fixtures (impugned goods) for which the Customs Authorities enhanced the value of the impugned goods. The Appellant cleared the impugned goods on payment of higher duty amount of Rs. 3,12,418/-.
Kelvin Infotech Pvt. Ltd.(the Assessee) entered into a contract with Argain Company Ltd., Taiwan for purchasing stock lot of LCD TVsof 3600 PCs of Samsung, Sony and Sanyo brand of various assorted models/sizes (impugned goods) on ‘as is, where it is basis’ and at 15% discount
In the instant case, the First Appellate Authority denied the Cenvat credit on Capital Goods on only ground that Wimplast Limited (the Appellant) had purchased the Capital Goods on hire purchase or loan agreement form a Company which was not a financial Company as prescribed under Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules), which reads as unde
Sterlite Industries Limited (the Appellant) filed a refund claim of Rs. 7,11,45,917/- on September 27, 2004 for accumulated credit under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules) but
In the instant case, Central Warehousing Corporation (the Appellant) was rendering both taxable as well as exempted services. The Appellant was availing Cenvat credit of the common input services and not maintaining separate records in respect of such input services consumed
Urja Engineers Limited (the Appellant) availed the ineligible Cenvat credit and the same was duly reflected in the periodicalreturns filed with the Department. The unit of the Appellant was audited by both the Internal Department’s Audit Team as well as CERA but no objection was raised by them.
