Service Tax : CESTAT rules that affiliation fees collected by universities are statutory functions, not taxable services. Service tax demand and...
CA, CS, CMA : A summary of key updates for Income Tax, GST, RBI, and legal matters issued from April 7-13, 2025, including exemptions, tax forms...
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...
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...
Custom Duty : CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices...
Service Tax : The Tribunal examined a service tax demand raised on the basis of DGARM data and financial statements. It held that reliance solel...
Custom Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that food testing kits were wrongly described as being for “diagnostic use only” to claim a customs exemptio...
Service Tax : CESTAT Chennai held that villas constructed on separate plots under individual agreements and approvals do not constitute a reside...
Service Tax : The Tribunal held that interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act is mandatory when service tax is paid after the due date. Admi...
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 Tribunal found that the Customs Broker fulfilled obligations by verifying exporter documents, and no requirement existed for deeper background checks. The suspension order was set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imported tugboats are not machinery, equipment or tools. It is specifically covered under Chapter Heading 8904 and hence benefit of notification no. 72/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 not admissible.
CESTAT ruled that statements and WhatsApp messages cannot be treated as evidence for imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 without following procedural safeguards, including examination in chief and cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that reassessing value a second time without fresh evidence was unsustainable and set aside the duty, interest, and penalty demand.
The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the alleged violations and given reasons for lifting the suspension. With a fresh suspension issued during the appeal, the Tribunal held the matter to be infructuous and dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that discrepancies between statements and Bills of Entry cannot justify rejecting genuine import documents. Confiscation was overturned as the Bills of Entry were improperly disregarded.
Tribunal ruled that confiscation cannot be sustained when goods were re-exported before Revenue’s appeal, restoring the original order.
The Tribunal confirmed recovery of erroneously refunded CVD amounts with interest, following the Supreme Court ruling. The appellant’s reliance on prior Tribunal orders was invalidated.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities misread the amended notification on Chapter 31 goods and failed to show that the imports were clearly excluded. The matter was remanded for fresh examination of the exemption’s scope.
Tribunal ruled that concessional customs duty was unavailable where imported goods were not actually used in manufacturing due to a fire, upholding duty demand while setting aside penalties.
